Talk:Tabyana Ali

In this article we are going to talk about Talk:Tabyana Ali, a topic of great relevance today. Talk:Tabyana Ali is a complex issue that covers different aspects that affect society as a whole. From its impact on the economy to its influence on personal relationships, Talk:Tabyana Ali is an issue that leaves no one indifferent. Throughout this article we will explore the different approaches and perspectives that exist around Talk:Tabyana Ali, with the aim of offering a more complete and in-depth understanding of this very relevant topic.

GA Review

Passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tabyana Ali/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 01:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 19:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Not much to do. Your sourcing tends to be heavy in the soaps press, and it's impressive you can make lemonade out of such overly sweet lemons! I do have a question as to one source that looks self-published, two minor spotcheck issues, and a few suggestions for prose, but that's about it. Ping me when addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • @Sammi Brie: Thank you so so so so much for reviewing this and for being so lovely - your comment about the lemons made me smile! :) I have addressed the points below, I hope they are okay? Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Copy changes

Sourcing and spot checks

  • What makes Michael Fairman a reliable source?
    • I have used his website a lot for American soap operas as Michael Fairman himself has over 35 years working and covering the genre, and worked for Sony producing a soap opera based website, has worked with the soap opera Days of our Lives and has credentials - this can be seen in his bio . However, if you think it is best to leave it I can remove the sources as they are not extremely essential. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    He looks like an SME of the type that should be credible. Thanks for the reply. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    {Ping|Sammi Brie}} Sorry, I am a bit confused? Anyway, everything that has that source also has another source backed up now. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't see the short film mentioned in .
  • I wonder if the Amazon chart fact in is worth including or not, frankly.
    • I included it as I believe that it shows how popular/successful the book was and thus adds notability, but if you think I should remove it then I will. If it had performed not as well I would have still included it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's a good reminder to be selective when looking at some of these middling sources. I think it's undue and removed it. To respond to the other item and borked ping, I think Fairman is fine for these articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Reviewed: 6, 9, 13, 14, 20. No other issues found.

Images

The Donnell Turner image is confirmed CC-BY-SA in its Vimeo source video. It's unfortunate there is no free image of Ali.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 00:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

(
)
  • Source:
Improved to Good Article status by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: All hooks are sourced, I don't think ALT1 is necessarily interesting so I would prefer to only pass ALT0, ALT2, and ALT3. A minor plagiarism issue in the article that can be fixed easily. All sources are placed after their respective sentences in prose. Prose is long enough. Locust member (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC).

Thank you so so much! :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)