Talk:JR Chandler and Babe Carey

message: In order for me to signoff that J.R. and Babe are a supercouple, I'd want to see third-party sources that confirm this.  Have they actually been referred to as a supercouple in any outside press?  Have they won an award anywhere as "best couple"? --Elonka 00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out the Spike and Lucas Scott articles, and they're both crufty -- I wouldn't use them as examples.  For articles that are good examples, check out the "Media" sections at WP:GA and WP:FA. Those are the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer.  :)  And in terms of soap couples, while you're starting out, I'd recommend working backwards.  Instead of picking a subject and trying to find sources for it, it might be easier to first find a source (like buy a reputable book on soap operas or get one from your local library), and then incorporating that information into Wikipedia, since you'll have a ready-made source for anything you'd like to add. Or if you want to branch out from soaps, look around your home for any good reference book, flip through it for a factoid that you think is interesting, and then check Wikipedia to see if it's included or not.  If it's not here yet, then you can add it. :) --Elonka 06:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yes, an article in TVGuide that referred to a supercouple, especially if the article was primarily about that couple, would probably be a good source. --Elonka 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supercouple status

message: The current plot summary is running at about 2,500 words.  I recommend condensing it to 500-1000 words.  The Wikipedia article should have just enough plot for context, and then we can provide links to other sites which have more detail. --Elonka 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Unfortunately, this article is not at a Good Article level at this time. The prose needs some fairly major copyediting still. The biggest problem that comes across is verb tense. The article should be written in the past tense, since the events happened in the past. The prose is also problematic in some areas. For example, the sentence: "The phrase star-crossed lovers having first been recorded by William Shakespeare in his play Romeo and Juliet, the J.R. and Babe romance has taken on certain facets of this, such as J.R.'s father, Adam, trying to separate the two at first knowledge of their union, but more notably the tragedy aspect has followed." I don't see any reason to have an introductory sentence followed by a colon for each of the recurring themes, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason for writing the themes sections in what is essentially a list format. The League of Copyeditors might be your best bet, but I would recommend getting at least a couple of editors (preferably one who doesn't follow the show) to do some copyediting and make sure the article is easy to understand.
Some of the claims are uncited or are not covered by the citations given (much of the article remains unreferenced altogether). A lot of the discussion contains point of view statements and original research. The article needs some pretty serious work, so I am going to fail it. It would be an interesting article to have listed as a GA, so I hope you continue to improve the article. My biggest suggestions are:
#Make sure the prose is clear and in the correct tense.
#Combine choppy sections to form well-developed paragraphs.
#Remove point of view words and original research (anything that is making a judgment or a claim about the couple, their fans, etc., that is not proven by the citations. Let the facts speak for themselves instead of giving commentary.
#Add references for anything that remains unreferenced.
#Have a few people look over it (other editors [including those not involved with the project], peer reviewers, or perhaps the League of Copyeditors).
Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the majority of this article is referenced. Thus, I don't get the GA review saying that most of it isn't. The only parts that aren't referenced are parts of the storyline section. But plots don't typically need to be referenced anyway. Though that seems to be applying more so to film articles these days. This article does need better references in some instances, however. I'll take care of all of this when I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I finally fixed up this article again, and followed some of the suggestions made in the peer review. This article is still not ready for GA status, though, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: ...and as the creator and main editor of this article, I am a little upset that it and others I've greatly improved were listed without consulting me first. As for the plot summary, it's in correct tense per Wikipedia policy. 
I don't have much more to say on this subject, except that of course I was still going to improve this article, and still plan to. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the majority of this article is referenced. Thus, I don't get the GA review saying that most of it isn't. The only parts that aren't referenced are parts of the storyline section. But plots don't typically need to be referenced anyway. Though that seems to be applying more so to film articles these days. This article does need better references in some instances, however. I'll take care of all of this when I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I finally fixed up this article again, and followed some of the suggestions made in the peer review. This article is still not ready for GA status, though, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would not have listed this article for GA yet...