# Talk:Tiffany Doggett

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiffany Doggett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2015, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
Please expand lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, to better serve as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. For this size article, I'd recommend three or four paragraphs, with at least four sentences per paragraph.
Supreme Court case in body text should be italicized.
Book Freakonomics should be italicized.
I really like how all info in the article is cited to in-line citations, even for plot type summary info, very very good here.
"Evangelise" should be spelled "evangelize", USA based article.
Good job on use of quotations!!! Copyvio Detector tool in GA Toolbox only shows one problem source at this link. Please trim down quotations from that link to under 30 percent.
"baptised" should be spelled baptized", as USA article -- please check for these instances, throughout the entire article.
Safe Place, fictional group in a TV show, probably better in quotes than italicized.
Beware of tense changes throughout the article. As much as possible, all text in Storylines sect should be in present tense.
You mix up and go back-and-forth between past tense and present tense in sect Critical commentary. Examples: "Doggett was widely perceived to have been" (past tense), followed by: "B. D. McClay claims that Doggett is a " (present tense), and "Two journalists for The A.V. Club also give negative reviews" (present tense) and then again later "Doggett's rape storyline in the third season garnered much reaction" (past tense) and then switches back "One critic, Jada Yuan, describes" (present tense). There are many more of these switches. Please pick one. I recommend using all past tense for Critical commentary sect.
2. Verifiable?: Please add in-line citations for factual assertions made in the image captions. Might also switch the captions to something similar already sourced in article body text, and then use that in-line cite in caption for same info. Several problems with hyperlinks in citations -- as shown with External links checker from GA Toolbox at top of this page. Please archive links with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using fields archivedate and archiveurl.
3. Broad in coverage?: Quite good job here on referencing and breadth and scope of coverage for the article, throughout. No issues here.
4. Neutral point of view?: 2nd paragraph is not sufficient to fully summarize Critical commentary sect. Also, please avoid vague wording use of "some have said", "other reviews", "several critics". Please be more specific. Which said what? What publications? Which reviews?
5. Stable? No stability issues upon inspection of article and its edit history and talk page.
6. Images?:
File:Tiffany Doggett Elle.jpg = please flesh out image fair use rationale on image page. What I mean by this is a numbered list of argumentation placed in the box in the sect Purpose of use in article, really arguing for why fair use rationale is asserted, point-by-point. You can see an example I did myself, at infobox image for article The Land of Gorch.
File:Lea DeLaria.jpg = image checks out okay on Wikimedia Commons, but maybe see if you can find a better high resolution image from Flickr or another source, if possible.
File:Taryn Manning at Paley Fest Orange Is The New Black crop.png = image checks out on Commons, but maybe move to left-side of text so subject eyeline is gazing towards body text itself. And maybe somewhere higher up in article, for better balance.
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Cirt: for your review. I will try my best to respond to these comments this weekend. There is no guarantee that I will have the time, though, and I don't mind if you fail this if I haven't got round to addressing the issues in the next seven days. Spiderone 18:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Worst case, you can nominate it again a 2nd time, and respond to that GA Reviewer pointing to this GA Review and say that in the interim, between the two, you then had more time to address everything, hopefully. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Spiderone:Let me know, here, if you've got a status update on this one. If I see some significant positive progress being made with regards to recommendations, above, we can keep the review open a tad bit longer. — Cirt (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


### Unfortunately, not GA at this time
Unfortunately, closing this one at not GA at this time. 
After revisiting after seven days, I see there weren't any changes made to the article in that time period. 
I hope that above recommendations are helpful and that GA Nominator will take some time to go through them and attempt to address them as best as possible, and then re-nominate at a later point in time.
Good luck, 
— Cirt (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: thanks for the review and sorry I haven't been able to devote any time to addressing these issues. No hard feelings. Spiderone 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I wish you the best of luck with the article in the future, — Cirt (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I had a fair amount of time last night unexpectedly and was able to address some of the issues raised in your review. Is there a certain amount of time I have to wait before posting to WP:GAN again? Spiderone 10:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It might make it easier if you could list, point-by-point, how you've attempted to address issues raised above, and post that list, below, here on this page. — Cirt (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
The lead has been expanded as per recommendations.
Both terms addressed in points 5 & 6 have now been italicised.
I've used the American spellings (criticize, baptize, evangelize) in the article now.
Trimmed down the quotation from point 9.
Changed Safe Place to "Safe Place"
The problems with past tense/present tense have now been addressed.

2. Verifiable?:
Referenced any statements made in an image.
Fixed problems from external links checker in GA Toolbox.
3. Broad in coverage?:
4. Neutral point of view?:
I've been more specific in the lead and eliminated the vague terms and gone for more specific references to reviews.

5. Stable?
6. Images?:
Tiffany Doggett fair use rationale has been expanded as per suggestions.
No suitable replacement found for Lea DeLaria image.
Taryn Manning moved to the left and higher up the article.
Spiderone 14:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Spiderone:Have you given any thought to Suggestion number 3, above, just as an option only, to consider, as a suggestion, but also a way to help out the Wikipedia community by paying it forward ? — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: Yes I have given it some thought and I decided that I would rather do my first review with something like football first as this is usually where I edit; this Doggett article was actually my first venture into something other than football, tennis and music. Spiderone 15:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Spiderone:Okay great, all I've asked is you read over the instructions at WP:GANI, and familiarize yourself with them. The rest is, of course, totally up to you! One last thing -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Tiffany_Doggett -- can you use Internet Archive by Wayback Machine to archive any links with anything other than a "0" or "200" value to WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate ? Or if you want, archive all the links that way ? You'll thank me later as this will increase the article's posterity over the longer term. Sound good ? — Cirt (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiffany Doggett/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article -- as it's an easier review being just a re-check of prior review and then hopefully should be resolved quite shortly. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Hi, thanks for directing me with the template for archiving references. The three in question have now been archived (the two NY Times ones were quite awkward as they required a login but I believe that they are okay now, you may wish to check this). Thanks again. Spiderone 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


### Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 27, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Verifiable?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Stable? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
Per prior GA Review, everything now looks successfully addressed by GA Nominator. My thanks to GA Nominator for such polite responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, from the prior GA Review. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! Thanks for giving this article (and myself) a second chance after I'd initially said I was too busy to address the issues. Spiderone 16:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)