This review is transcluded from Talk:Jennifer Brooke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 06:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review as you have pledged to review three more. Comments to follow within a few days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Currently needs improvement, especially on sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't use fixed pixel size per MOS:IMGSIZE.
• Lead paragraph is lengthy: would be better divided in two. Per MOS:OPEN, the first paragraph should define the article subject and provide a brief summary of the "highlights", the second paragraph can have the lesser roles and detail.
• "gained a place and began training" tautology, as you can't begin training without gaining a place.
• "Brooke described Rachel as "quite cool" and "free-spirited" and not caring about other people's opinions, which Brooke liked about her. The actress explained that Rachel fits in well with the Nightingale family and called Rachel and Nathan "a match made in Heaven" and "best friends" who "adore" each other." relevant to the character, not the actress. If it was from a secondary source, it could be kept, but a WP:PRIMARY interview doesn't cut it.
• "Garfield believed that he and Brooke made a good team and was sad that she was leaving. Following her departure, Brooke returned to the Hollyoaks set several times as she had friends that lived in Liverpool. Garfield and Brooke also stayed in touch as they had become good friends. None of this is WP:DUE.
• "In addition to performing, Brooke teaches acting to young people between the ages of two and 16, which she enjoys as she likes to share her passion with the children and watching them grow as performers. She added, "I find it so important for children to explore their own creative identity and have an outlet that allows them to express themselves - there's real power in that! Brooke, along with fellow Italia Conti graduate Samantha Shaw, is the co-director and a teacher of the B.O.S.S Acting School." All of this is sourced a quote on the website of the company she founded (a promotional, non-independent, WP:ABOUTSELF situation) and as it is obviously "unduly self-serving", it must be removed. Just rely on the Wimbledon Guardian source instead.
• Would suggest merging "Personal life" with the start of "Life and career" per MOS:OVERSECTION. Also not sure about the WP:DUEWEIGHT on that bit on telling others about being a vegan.

Citation numbers refer to this version.

• It would be useful to add timestamps of YouTube citations using {{rp}} or similar templates.
• 2a) "Brooke enjoyed acting since she was young but there were not many local performing schools for her to pursue this and she believed that she did not have the confidence to do so." closely paraphrases the source "I always enjoyed acting from a young age but I didn’t have many performing schools locally (or the confidence!) for me to explore this passion."
• 2c) good
• 2d) "enjoyed the experience of being on set every day and seeing how the episodes were made behind the scenes" closely paraphrases the source "loved the experience of being on set everyday and watching the behind the scenes making of each episode". Suggest cutting.
• 3 Is it normal to have so much sourced to an agency CV? I'd suggest cutting the more trivial stuff, such as TV commercials and non-notable short films, from the article body.
• 8) misrepresentation of the quote "create more of a sense of community", which means there was some sense of community there before. The current version, which omites "more of a", implies that sense of community was completely absent. Careful that you don't take WP:HEADLINEs as reliable sources.
• 14 good
• 15 good
• 22 good

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for your review, I think I have fixed everything. I unfortunately was not able to add a timestamp as the information was regarding the whole video but I hope it should be okay. I also did another search and tried to replace a few sources. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Digital Spy's output by Daniel Kilkelly and others. It seems that one short, tabloidy article goes out each day with "spoilers for tonight!" for every soap opera they cover. If the magazine is getting advance information about what is in the soap on a regular basis, then surely it's some form of WP:SPONSORED content arrangement? Is that accurate? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sponsored content. Soap operas release spoilers – as with other television shows – in advance, and different media outlets (Daily Mirror, Metro, Digital Spy, Manchester Evenings News, Inside Soap, Soaplife, What to Watch etc) all report on it. Furthermore, whilst they do report on spoilers, that's only part of it – they also do reviews after the episodes, analysis, reception pieces, casting news etc. Also, WP:DIGITALSPY does not have this concern. They also regularly criticise soap operas and television series too, which they would not do it if they were sponsored (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] etc). It's similar to Entertainment Weekly and Radio Times. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the entire website is sponsored content, just that this particular series seems to be sponsored. Where do the soap operas release spoilers to Daily Mirror, Metro, Digital Spy etc.? Is it publicly available, or is it directly to the websites to drum up interest? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it is sponsored. According to here [9] they accept press packages and the pages that are sponsored say that they are – which none of the soap spoilers do. Digital Spy has been used in hundreds of articles and many GAs and no one has ever brought this up as an issue, which I think would have been caught if it was sponsored DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? WP:DCGAR encompassed hundreds of articles before endemic problems were noticed. That page seems to indicate that the "spoilers" articles are based around press releases from the soaps. I’ll research and ask around a little. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DaniloDaysOfOurLives, unfortunately the RSN discussion I started did not received much response, but the one reply was clear that the spoiler-type articles aren't entirely independent, so they should probably be only used for verifying simple, straightforward information. With that in mind, the article is mostly fine, but "the couple were characterised as being the "perfect" match" (cited to this spoiler-type source) veers over the line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that bit DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]