Kelli Presley received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Kelli Presley has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 7, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DarthBotto ( talk · contribs) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Greetings; I will be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, to see if it is suitable for promotion at this juncture. Within a few hours' time, I will notifying the nominator about my initial findings.
DARTHBOTTO
talk•
cont 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Lead
Appearances
Development
Reception
1. Well written: The prose describing this character's appearances is unsatisfactory and without flow. The spelling and grammar of the article are dubious, as well, and must be attended to. Additionally, it is impossible for the content to be concise when there is information missing and skirted over in areas like the regards for the alternate ending(s).
2. Verifiable with no original research: While much of the article is verifiable, a large portion of the sources are unreliable, beyond the most glaring ones concerning the databases like IMDb and Fandango. Furthermore, there are portions, specifically in the development section, that are original research and not adequate for inclusion, let alone to describe a process that cannot be inferred from a screenplay.
3. Broad in its coverage: The development section hinders this category, as it immediately runs off on a tangent not related to development and never delivers on the purpose of the section. Without that critical information, this article can serve little more purpose than a regurgitation of the content from the Black Christmas page.
4. Neutral: The page does justice by not leaning one way or another. I would say the editors, specifically the nominator, have done a fine job of keeping the neutrality level.
5. Stable: This is hard to determine, as this article went untouched for years, but then saw a spurt of attention from the nominator. Thankfully, there have been no edit wars to be had.
6. Illustrated: The performer, Katie Cassidy, is shown in an appropriate location, so I feel as though the Good Article criteria is fulfilled in this regard.
@ DARTHBOTTO Alright, I've followed your instructions and made the necessary changes to the article. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much information about the development of the character so I renamed the section to simply "Casting and creation" instead. If the article still needs further improvements I'll be happy to do them. -- PanagiotisZois ( talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Kelli Presley received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Kelli Presley has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 7, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: DarthBotto ( talk · contribs) 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Greetings; I will be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, to see if it is suitable for promotion at this juncture. Within a few hours' time, I will notifying the nominator about my initial findings.
DARTHBOTTO
talk•
cont 22:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Lead
Appearances
Development
Reception
1. Well written: The prose describing this character's appearances is unsatisfactory and without flow. The spelling and grammar of the article are dubious, as well, and must be attended to. Additionally, it is impossible for the content to be concise when there is information missing and skirted over in areas like the regards for the alternate ending(s).
2. Verifiable with no original research: While much of the article is verifiable, a large portion of the sources are unreliable, beyond the most glaring ones concerning the databases like IMDb and Fandango. Furthermore, there are portions, specifically in the development section, that are original research and not adequate for inclusion, let alone to describe a process that cannot be inferred from a screenplay.
3. Broad in its coverage: The development section hinders this category, as it immediately runs off on a tangent not related to development and never delivers on the purpose of the section. Without that critical information, this article can serve little more purpose than a regurgitation of the content from the Black Christmas page.
4. Neutral: The page does justice by not leaning one way or another. I would say the editors, specifically the nominator, have done a fine job of keeping the neutrality level.
5. Stable: This is hard to determine, as this article went untouched for years, but then saw a spurt of attention from the nominator. Thankfully, there have been no edit wars to be had.
6. Illustrated: The performer, Katie Cassidy, is shown in an appropriate location, so I feel as though the Good Article criteria is fulfilled in this regard.
@ DARTHBOTTO Alright, I've followed your instructions and made the necessary changes to the article. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much information about the development of the character so I renamed the section to simply "Casting and creation" instead. If the article still needs further improvements I'll be happy to do them. -- PanagiotisZois ( talk) 14:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)