Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2017 [1].

Simone Russell

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. While her early appearances center around her love triangle with Chad Harris-Crane and her sister Whitney, the character later receives more prominence on the show through her experience coming out as a lesbian to her family, and her relationship with Rae Thomas. The network defended the show's treatment of Simone's sexuality as a serious commentary on the topic. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by three actresses over the course of the show: Lena Cardwell (July 5, 1999 to April 16, 2000), Chrystee Pharris (April 17, 2000 to April 22, 2006), and Cathy Jenéen Doe (July 23, 2004 – September 4, 2007). The character was created as a part of the show's effort to represent a full African-American family and full-realized African-American characters on television.

Her storyline made daytime television history by having the first instance in a soap opera of two women in bed making love. The character is also notable for being daytime TV's first African-American lesbian. At the 17th GLAAD Media Awards, the show won Outstanding Daily Drama for its portrayal of Simone's sexual orientation. The show's representation of LGBT topics, and Cathy Jenéen Doe's performance as Simone, received a mixed response from critics. This is my fourth nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other three were Chad Harris-Crane, the Russell family (Passions), and Eve Russell. I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

I almost support it but there is one thing that kinda bothers me

  • The storyline section seems a bit in-universe (like "Born in 1983" seems trivial for the casual reader). Couldn't it start with something like "The character debuts in the season x, episode x"? Same with the other paragraphs.

Ping me when you are done, and I will support.Tintor2 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean by this as it is an odd introduction into the "Storylines" section. I have changed it to say that she first appeared in the series premiere. Since Passions is a soap opera, to does not have the season x, episode x format of other shows. The years in the rest of the section, such as "In the summer of 2005" correspond to the episode's air dates to provide a context for when this story arc takes place. I hope this clears things up and let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Syek88

I probably won't review this article, I'm sorry, but I did notice one thing - the article seems to be inconsistent (lead, infobox, body) about whether the Cardwell-Pharris casting change occurred in 2000 or 2001. Syek88 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera
  • I'll be on and off today so I'll try to leave a few comments here and there throughout the next few days. In the references section, you should only provide links to different publications and website (like Soapcentral) on the first occasion.
  • Thank you for helping with this article; I look forward to your further comments and take your time. There is absolutely no rush with this. I received a note from my previous FACs that the publications and websites actually should be linked for every single reference in the reference section (probably so if a reader is looking at any individual reference they can easily click the appropriate link to find out more about the publication and the work). I am not completely sure on the right way of doing it, but that is just a note that I have received in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've just finished reading through this article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. I did notice that ref 14 has a typo ("=Variety"), but other than that, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and engaging. Good work! JAGUAR  14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:CathyJenéenDoePinkTop.jpg: Non-free image, which seems like the correct license for such an image. Using it to show the article topic seems fine for me. The non-free rationale seems to address all aspects of NFCC.

ALT text is ungrammatical. Otherwise all seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Everything is in good state with wikilinks and archives. I'll give it a pass.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gen. Quon

This looks pretty good. I just have a few points, and if they are resolved/explained, I'd be more than happy to give support for the prose.

  • The opening sentence features the phrase " which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08." This isn't a major issue, but to me there seems something off about using the 'to' between "1999" and "2007" and then using an endash for the next years. I could be totally off here, but would "1999–2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08" work?
  • That makes sense to me. I agree that consistency is always the best way to go, and I have made the adjustments. I have been looking at this for so long that I have been overlooking that the entire time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to add access dates to the URLs? I always do by force of habit, but I'm not sure if it's required.
  • I do not need the access dates as everything is archived. I was told in a previous review that if something is archive, then the access date should be removed to avoid padding. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Just wondering if someone could check the status of my nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PanagiotiZois
In the lead section shouldn't it say "fully-realized" instead of "full-realized"?
In the "Casting and creation" section, seeing as you already mentione what NBC stands for in the lead section, I don't think it's necessary to do so again. Also wouldn't it be better to say "made [her] feel loved and appreciated"? Though if you feel it's better the way it is I have no problem.
Everything seems fines with the "Storyline" section. One question though, it says that Simone's mother Eve panicked when she found out about her sexuality. Was she concerned for her safety or was it out of homophobia. Because later it's stated that Simone went to her for help with Rae. Was Eve by that point accepting?
  • To the best of my understanding, Eve was primarily concerned about her daughter's safety and eventually became more understanding and considerate of her sexuality. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Reception" section I noticed this in the box: "stories of our lives, he says." Is he quoting someone on that?

Other than those minor things, the article is amazing. Not really a surprise though, given that you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning Oppose from Vedant

Will put some soon. NumerounovedantTalk 17:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • You might want to consider re-arranging the second paragraph. It goes back and forth discussing the character and the actresses. Line 1 talks about the creation of character, followed by the line talking about the actresses. The next line goes back to the conception of the character, and the next talk about the actresses again. It just comes out as a little disconnected IMO.
Casting and creation
  • Again, the last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't really belong there. The entire paragraph talks about the casting of racially diverse cast and the no. of actresses that played Simone doesn't really relate to any of it. You might want to start the next paragraph with "Over the course of the show, Simone was played by three actresses:...". And then continue with the details of actresses in their order.
  • Did Cardwell never say anything (other than the fan-mail bit) on her exit? The article isn't really giving the reader anything on her exit. (I am assuming there's to give in the first place?)
  • "she shaped her performance through her friendship with Pharris; she explained that Pharris answered all of her questions about the character." - this is rather minor, but can you think of a suitable pronoun to replace the second occurrence of "Pharris"?
Characterization
  • Considering the contrasting reviews, can you think of a better conjunction than "and" to connect the second sentence.
  • I find it a little odd that the Doe's approach to the character is discussed in the Casting section, while Phariss' in the Characterization section. Also, Cardwell's approach (if available) is missing altogether.
  • Doe's part was about best preparing for the show and the role, and she did not go into anything particular about the actual character other than that so it seems more appropriate for the "Casting and creation" section, while Pharris actually provides a deeper understanding of her approach to the actual character. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there nothing worthy of discussion about the character prior to bisexual storyline?
  • No, she was a background character for a majority of the show, only acting as the third wheel in a love triangle. Her lesbian storyline was her primary storyline, and even then it was rather abruptly ended and brushed away to make room for more of the show's major players. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Storylines
  • Not sure if I can be of much help here. I am completely unfamiliar with the series and characters and wouldn't want to mess with plot and storylines.
Reception
  • I am not sure if the opening sentence is appropriately placed. I am sure its a big part of the character as such, but the general viewpoint towards the character needs to be mentioned first.
  • Things don't seem to get any better as we move ahead, these are completely disconnected and underwhelming claims and should be treated as separate entries (expanding them might be helpful).
  • There are also some very basic errors here as well. Caps fix needed "the soap opera won", repetition of "Doe".
  • I don't think that the section should start with mentioning the awards; they should either go in the end together or be mentioned after a relevant fact.
  • "Simone's storyline about coming out as a lesbian received mainly positive feedback" - what about before that, anything on her earlier reception?
  • "An article on Soaps.com noted that Simone would be remembered as "a character who broke down some barriers for the depiction of lesbians on daytime TV and earned the show awards and accolades from civil rights groups"." - This has already been said, adds nothing new here, however, I do believe that this belongs here and should be removed from the development section.
  • emphasized "on"?
  • With no time line the "right now" bit seems odd here : "Soapcentral's Brandi Pine found Simone's homosexuality to be "the most real and moving story on the show right now", and highlighted".
  • I also think the sentence should be split into two.
  • The third paragraph has a lot of claims with missing in-line citations.
  • "Sarah Warn criticized Simone's relationship" - just "Warn" would suffice.
  • The Herndon L. Davis review has no base here, the intersex serial killer? Where did that come from? I am missing something?
  • I have revised this. Davis is saying that Simone's storyline was overshadowed by the storyline involving Vincent Clarkson. I have revised this to better reflect it by simplifying the sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is in a rather poor state, it both begins and ends abruptly. There is too much negative criticism and too little of the favorable reviews to balance out the "positive feedback" claim, some going back and forth, and some unsubstantiated claims (comparisons between Simone and other LGBT characters never finds a mention). You might need to put in some extra work here.
Looks a lot better now, well structured and balanced. Thanks for the prompt replies, just the minor tweak. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am concerned that there's not much on her earlier story (I am not sure if that was the case on the show) in the article and too much focus on her sexuality storyline, without the mention of any other aspects of her personality. Similarly, the development (especially the characterization) section too feels to be missing out on a lot of aspects. This remains to be a highly underwritten character (either in the article, or the show itself). I'll wait for a reply to have a better perspective on this, and although I see that a lot of work has been put into the article, it does look a little short of FA standards to me. NumerounovedantTalk 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Numerounovedant: From my research, the character was a relatively minor character prior to the storyline focusing on her sexuality (which also turned out to be relatively minor in comparison to the grand scheme of the show). She was primarily a background character involved in a love triangle between two other characters or a side character for a majority of her time on the show. If that prevents the article from reaching FA standards, then there is nothing else that I can do as I highly doubt I can find further information on this character as I had to do a lot of digging just to get this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be no information available other than what's included, I don't see a reason on discussing the idea further. What you can do is mention at least once in the article (probably in the development section), that this was a minor character that gathered attention with the later developments in her storylines. Looks good to me at this point, will have a final say after proof reading. Great work Aoba47. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Thank you for taking the time to do a thorough review, and I apologize for my mistakes. This was one of the very first articles that I worked after joining Wikipedia so that probably explains the questionable prose in certain areas. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now, just the one thing. The soaps review is still being repeated, I believe you agree with me on the fact fact that it is better suited in the Reception section, and thus should be removed from the Development section. I can now Support (in good faith the last point will be addressed, which i am sure will be). Great work on the article. NumerounovedantTalk 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I've done a quick copyedit; pls let me know if I've accidentally altered any meaning. Given the brevity of my review, I won't declare outright support, but nor do I have any particular objections from a prose perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I believe that this nomination has received enough commentary to be promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think this is almost ready, but I noticed a few little issues in the prose. If someone could give it a last polish, I think we'd be there. For example: "she breaks with him" (idiomatic); the second paragraph of "Storylines" has a series of similar sentences which make for repetitive reading and could perhaps be varied a little; "Viewers saw the set-up for the ending of Simone's romance with Rae through the beginning of 2007" (Wordy, and a little unclear what this means); "She does not make a physical appearance during the show's run on DirecTV or in the series finale" (what other kind of appearance is there?); "Damon Romine, media entertainment director of GLAAD (2005-2009), emphasized the show's ability to normalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics for a wider audience" (What was he talking about when he emphasised this? Or do we mean he "highlighted" or something similar?); "Passions also made history by becoming the first daytime television series to show two women in bed making love" (Redundancy: unless women had been shown "making love" somewhere else, we don't need the location. I'm not keen on "making love" in an encyclopaedic article either, but that's not a huge issue). There is nothing major, but there is enough to give me pause before promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sarastro1: I believe that I have addressed all of your above comments. I am not sure how missed all of that. I just changed "making love" to "having sex" as some of the articles really emphasized that the show had scenes of the two characters having sex and it was a subject of criticism from viewers as well. Let me know if anything else should be changed and/or removed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take this -- the prose has changed a bit since my quick ce, so I was planning to give it another run-through anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry, been one of those weeks (actually been one of those weeks for the past month!) but I started checking yesterday and will aim to finish today. Cheers, 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm done prose-wise. Just looking at sources, I couldn't seem to find SoapCentral's "about us" section -- what makes them authoritative, and can we confirm this is not a site that the public can edit? Also why is SoapCentral italicised in the references but Soaps.com is not -- I gather they're both websites as opposed to magazines, so I'd expect standard case for both. Cheers, 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ian Rose: Thank you for your response. I italicized SoapCentral as it was done that way on the List of soap opera media outlets, but I agree with you and I have corrected this. Here is the "About" page for the website (1), which provides information on the website's owner/founder and the editors. It provides more information about the site that confirms it is not a website in which any user can make edits. I have also used this websites in my past FACs without any issue so I pretty sure that the website is credible in this context. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1:@Ian Rose: Hey, just wanted to check in on the progress of this FAC? Sorry for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's why we're here! I just want to hear back from Ian on this one before we promote, as he raised one sourcing issue. But, to warn you, he's a little busy IRL at the moment, so this might be a day or two longer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for your patience, guys. Re. SoapCentral, I can see that it (along with other sources) has been given a clean bill by one of our more experienced reviewers at earlier FACs, and that it's been brought up at the RS noticeboard a couple of times and not been deemed unreliable, so fair enough -- no objections to promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Simone_Russell/archive1&oldid=1140259593"