Talk:Sara Sidle

Spoilers?

• Sigh*

Thanks for the spoiler, Wikipedia. Please bear in mind that other countries (in this case, New Zealand) are not necessarily as far along in the series as the US (I presume the main source of knowledge for this article), and as we are currently only in the seventh season, reading about the season eight proposal was an unwelcome surprise. However, I'm not a proficient Wiki-editor, so I shall leave this open to regular users as to whether it needs correcting or not. MZ.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.1.145 (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was decided a while back that the spoiler templates should be removed, since the idea was that if people are coming to Wikipedia, they should expect a complete—spoilers and all—picture of a subject. Whether that needs re-examining I've always wondered, but I figured you deserved an explanation. Octane ^{[improve me]} 27.01.08 0953 (UTC)

Character profiles

"In the CBS character profiles, it is said that Sara is an only child yet in an episode of CSI Sara says to Gil Grissom that she once found a bag of weed under her "brother's" bed and ratted him out to their parents, even though CBS also state that her parents are "ex-hippies"."

If I'm not mistaken, she also went into foster care, so she could have been referring to a foster brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.242.143 (talk)

In one episode, Grissom was doing an experiment with raw meat and flies, and Sara states that she is a vegetarian. Does anyone know the episode she says this, and can someone add it to the trivia section? I'm pretty sure it was in Season 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.185.97 (talk)

Not exactly. I can tell you that in some episode after the "dead pig" experiment she says "I haven't eaten meat since we sat up with that dead pig," or something close to that, but I don't remember the specific ep. Jeh 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode you're lookin for was Season 2: Burden of Proof. Also, Trivia Sections Should Be Avoided. if you can't say it inline, please don't add one. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 22:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, what's up with this trivia section? I mean really: "Generally she wears slacks and tops, but is a little more casual than Catherine." Time for a little trivia Stalinism, I think. Editus Reloaded 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Current Status

Who are these people that are changing the status? It's annoying.--Rory666 01:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, she shouldn't even have one she is a fictional character who exists in a fictional universe: the Universe of the CSI series. --VorangorTheDemon 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dell foster Care

Do you think that sarah might have been under care of the minature killer? It would explain the comment "he loved you better" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.67.13 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not related to the article. But i'll answer you so no one ever includes it in the article. Sara most likely was not under the same care that Natalie (The Miniature Killer), and the comment "he loved you better" is never said (i asume you are talking about Dead Doll). The conversation between Natalie and sara goes something like this:

Sara: I know that Ernie loved you, he would have not wanted you to do this Natalie: Ernie loved me more than Grissom could ever love you Sara: Grissom? oh i know what this is aboout blablba...*dozes off* then wakes up under car etc. Hope this answers your question!Yamanbaiia 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Style

This article could stand to be rewritten to make it look more like the Grissom article and less like an article on a fan site. Any critical commentary on the relationship or on Sara that we could cite? --Bookworm857158367 12:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Most interviews referenced in Grissom talk about both Grissom and Sara, so you can check those out. By the way i think the best way of tidying this up is just go paragraph by paragraph deleting all the fan made poetry about Sidle and start googling references (from interviews, etc). Yamanbaiia 15:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to it, everyone. I'm not going to touch it right now, but I think the Gil Grissom section could be shortened. Right now it reads a bit too much like a summary of some of the most recent episodes. Right now it's current, at least until it's clear whether the actress will leave. Later, it should be rewritten into a more general account of the character's role on the show throughout the series. Bookworm857158367

Completely agree with Bookworm, The issue is that all of you are writing this article like a fansite would: like she's a real person; she isn't. Details about her life shouldn't be the focus of the article, the creators' development of her in the series needs to be the primary focus of the article. And her birthdate is WP:CRUFT. It's not important because she exists soley in a fictional universe. And her status shouldn't be in the article either, like I said, she's a fictional character in a fictional universe, therefor her status is not valid. --VorangorTheDemon 13:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"all of you"... it's mostly non-registered people that don't care/don't know what in-universe means, that have written all the "poetry" about the character. Every thursday like, after CSI:LV aires in the US, a wave of edits goes through all of the CSI articles.

This should be entirely rewritten, we all agree. We don't need to know everything Sidle has done over the las 8 years. Like, it's written the fact that she has a brother, there's no need of explaining WHY we know that she has a brother, just a REF to the episode and the phrase " she has a brother". Or again, the fact that she doesn't rememeber the face of the social worker that took her to foster care? just: "she was in foster care" is enough, with paragraphs like that this will never be GA quality.Yamanbaiia 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that she has a brother even significant to her over-all character? I don't think so, perhaps a tiny mention in the info box is all that has to be done. The thing that should be focused on at this time is sorting out what info should stay, and what should be removed/re-written. And to solve the problem of IP users (unregistered) editing the article every Thursday night, you could propose a partial lock, so that only established members such as you and I (even though I won't, CSI isn't my area of expertise) can work on adding the appropriate info. I can help sort out what info is important and what isn't. I've worked on quite a few other articles that've made GA, and I didn't even know much about the subjects. --VorangorTheDemon 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think partial locking is necessary, it's ridiculous to lock a whole franchise when maybe only a couple of them (depending what happens on the episode) will be altered. I deleted, referenced, and did a whole lot of changes up until "relationships", that still needs reviewing. Also, there's still missing everything involving production (casting, creation of character etc). I invite anyone that wants to know how this should look to take a look to Boone Carlyle.Yamanbaiia 23:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some MAJOR problems here with the way you have edited this. Writing style, punctuation, spelling errors, etc. It was reasonably well written before. Now it's not. "Losing" is correct, not "loosing," for instance. I also don't like the way you've removed the names of the episodes which provided references for different events. --Bookworm857158367 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, it was 2AM, i'll take another look later. It was well written before but it had too many irrelevant facts ("She also has a good singing voice, and can read upside down. Her handwriting is described by Nick Stokes as "chicken-scratch."") and too many repetitions (the fact that cases involving abused woman and children affected her emotionally was repeated 3 times). By putting the episodes as reference, and not in the main article, things become more organized, and it's not being constantly repeted "in the episode".You can write everything more fluently. Bookworm857158367, You've edited this many times, i understand if you take this personally, if you want to reverse my edit i won't fight you for it, and i won't make any other changes in the article either.Yamanbaiia 07:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was overly harsh there. I'm a bit anal when it comes to spelling and punctuation and I'd also had a bad day. In general, I think you've done a good job with content and it does need more work of that nature. Go ahead and edit it. If I see anything with style, I'll go back and fix it without the harsh comments! --Bookworm857158367 12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

There are a number of issues that need fixing before I promote this article, mostly involving referencing.

1) Many of the references do not have a retrieval date. All electronic references need one.Y

2) I never thought I would say this, but this article has too many footnotes. There is no reason to have more than one footnote per sentence unless the topic is controverial. Sara Sidle is not controversial. Please consolidate the footnotes. The amount of them is distracting when reading the article.

3) While most of the article has too many footnotes, the video games section needs one.Y

4) Many footnotes have a period after them, a period before and after, or a space in front. They need to all be after the period with no space in front. Y

5) The lead is too short and does not act as a 'mirror' of the article. It should contain information about the public reaction to the character, her character development and more information about her relationship with Gil. Ideally, the lead should be like a minuaturized version of the whole article, containing roughly the same information in a much briefer format.Y

6) I would strongly suggest you get a better picture for the user box. The current picture is extremely dark, and makes it very difficult to see Sara's face. It should be relatively easier to find one with better lighting. Y

7) I would also recommend consolidating some of the one-line paragraphs. Short paragraphs make reading choppy, and make the article flow poorly. For example, instead of having three paragraphs in the 'Early Life' section, one paragraph would make the section read much better. Y

Please contact me if you have any questions. Zeus1234 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Numb.6 I have a macbook and the image seemed great to me, but now i saw it on a HP flat monitor and it looks like crap. BUT i also took a look at it with an old samsung monitor, and it doesn't look as bad. conclusion: i now made the image brighter, and if this still doesn't work for you then someone else is going to have to take the screenshot. I really liked this image because it shows Jorja in a "scientific" moment, and it really isn't as easy as it seems to find one as good as this one.
• Numb.2 Can someone else take care of deleting some footnotes? It took me ages to remove all the episodes from the article and make them into references, and now i can't get myself to get rid of them.Yamanbaiia 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo is fine now. Just get rid of the double footnotes, which should not be too difficult. I'd do it myself, but as a reviewer I can't. Afterwards, I'll promote the article. Zeus1234 20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted 4 references, the only one that is now repeated is for two different statements in different parts of the article. I hope that's good enough. :) Yamanbaiia 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some of my thoughts (not part of the review per se but I was asked to comment during the process and this seems a good place for it):

• The Grissom/Sidle picture caption should be changed (here and on the other entry) as "sizzling" seems to subjective.
• Most of my concerns are over the public reaction section as I'm always uncomfortable (in any entry) when there is too much discussion of what fans feel as notability concerns sneak in as well as sourcing issues. If a fan reaction makes mainstream news then it seems solid, other things seem less so:
  • GSR link - I think this is worth mentioning although such things could be the work of a few obsessed fans I think it adds to the discussion.
  • Using a YouTube search as a reference is probably a bad idea - the results will change over time, WP:EL is strict on linking to sites like that and unless it is free to use interview I am unsure of the use of a YouTube link in general (I have seen good ones like a Google Video of someone's conference lecture, for example).
  • If you use reliable sources then link through to them - I see one Entertainment Weekly article and so a link through to their article here is helpful. We obviously can't judge the weighting people give to sources and links like that help people assess them for themselves.
  • The "terrifying romance" link is to [1] which is actually the general category for the blog. While blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources I have asked around on other projects and the general feeling is that where the issue is uncontroversial someone's own blog or an interview on a reliable blog are the exceptions to the guideline and this is the case here. The direct link to the interview is here

Overall the article is very solid and avoids undue speculation and fancruft which can bog down entries like this. My suggestions above are pretty minor and easily addressed (and may not be the kind of thing that would hinder it making FA anyway) and should just help tighten the article up around the edges.

I won't jump in and start editing in case some of the above needs further discussion. Good work everyone who has contributed to the article so far - it is looking very good. (Emperor 15:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

I just noticed another formatting problem with the footnotes. They also need a space after them. So when a footnote is placed it should be -period-footnote-space-new sentence-. You also still need to get rid of all the extra footnotes. Only one per sentence is needed. Zeus1234 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Y, i changed the caption, and i also removed the youtube links. About the blogs, they are interviews, not someone's personal opinions, so i don't see the problem. Aaaaand about GSR.com feel free to write any comment about it, i am not going to because i'll probably get carried away, poor User:Bookworm857158367 will go crazy copy-editing and the public reaction will again be what it shoudn't, a fan section. I hope this is good enough. Yamanbaiia 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I did the last few required edits myself, but now that's done, I can pass the article.Zeus1234 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA!!

To clarify what I said I wasn't arguing for the blog to be removed I was commenting that while it would normally not be allowed this is an acceptable exception to that guideline (and I offered the direct link). (Emperor 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

'Mrs Grissom'

It is unlikely that Sara took Grissom's last name - her csi uniform still bears the name "Sidle". The "Mrs Grissom" comment was presumably to indicate her relationship to the Grissom-obsessed person she was questioning. Rmd1023 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good article and keeping it that way.

It will not keep the GA honour if blog references and creative writing about the GSR relationship is allowed to remain. I have removed some, and will try to watch to prevent this from happening again. Trista TristaBella (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sara Grissom?

It was revealed in Season 10, Episode 2, that Sara Side, after marrying Gil Grissom, takes the Grissom family name. Shouldn't we rewrite everything using Grissom as Sara's last name?? --DisneyCSIfan (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Gil Grissom and Sara Sidle

Please make their marragie work!! Do not let them sepearte. They are one fo the best of the show!! Please keep them together!! Thank You!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sara Sidle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011204653/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/csis-launch-sav.html to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/csis-launch-sav.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Sara Sidle

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Citation issues violating GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2007. There are sourcing issues: some sentences are either unsourced or sourced by unreliable sources. I also doubt the character's notability overall, because the reliable sources I found on Google and in the article talks more about the actor than the character herself. Spinixster (chat!) 08:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delist. As noted by the nominator, there are statements without suitable sources in the article. Some of the text would need a refresh. Relationships section could do with a good trim. Seems unlikely that SaraSidledivix.jpg is CC, as it appears to be a screenshot from a fan site, and three "fair use" images may be pushing it a bit. Please ping me if anyone volunteers to work on the article, as it might be salvageable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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.