Talk:Lindsay Lohan/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the lead, "...subsequently appearing in independent films including Robert Altman's A Prairie Home Companion and Bobby", at the moment, the sentence reads as though Altman also directed Bobby, which he didn't. In the Early life and education section, "She attended high school, where she did well in science and maths", "maths"? In the Freaky Friday and Mean Girls section, "As of 2010, it was her biggest commercial film success, earning $160 million worldwide", is the film not her biggest commercial success?
    I think it uses "it was her biggest" to avoid becoming out of date (I don't know who wrote that). Perhaps "it remains [or remained] her biggest"? --an odd name 05:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it was "her biggest" that threw me off. Well, you know, re-word it so that it can make sense. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AnOddName got the commercial success thing, I changed maths to "mathematics"- does that work better?, everything else fixed I think.
    Reworded the commercial success thing again. It's a bit wordy, but i think the meaning is clearer.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Early life and education section, since she's American, "finalising" ---> "finalizing". In the 1989–2002: Early career and The Parent Trap section, "modelled" ---> "modeled". This header ---> "2003–2004: Mean Girls and Freaky Friday" should be ---> "2003–2004: Freaky Friday and Mean Girls", since Freaky Friday was released before Mean Girls. In the 2004: Speak and 2005: Herbie: Fully Loaded and A Little More Personal (Raw) section, "Billboard 200" ---> "Billboard 200", since Billboard is a magazine. Same section, please link "Herbie: Fully Loaded" and "Vanity Fair" once. In the 2005: Herbie: Fully Loaded and A Little More Personal (Raw) section, "Stephen Holden of the new York Times" ---> "Stephen Holden of the New York Times". In the 2006–2007: Independent movies and career interruptions section, link "James G. Robinson, Georgia Rule, Entertainment Weekly and I Know Who Killed Me once. In the Personal life section, link "New York" magazine once.
     Done I think- the Anglicisms are mine- force of habit! All the other style things appear to be fixed.
    Half-check.
    Agree on just a half-check: I just corrected an instance of "advert", and I've never seen the phrase "in respect of" (which was used nearby) in that sense. Another "Anglicism"? Give the article another look-see. --an odd name 13:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged on advert, certainly- if you look hard enough, you might find some more but I'm hoping to weed them out as I go through dealing with the other stuff. I think the style issues have been fixed, though I need to go through the prose with a fine-tooth comb which I won't be able to do until tuesday. HJ Mitchell
  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:
    There's a couple of dead links. Ref. 1 why is Kyra Phillips' name ---> "[KYRA] PHILLIPS", like that? Ref. 3 "The New York Times" needs to be in the "work" format of the ref., and the title should not be in all capitals. Ref. 8 "Interview" should also be in the work format, since it's a magazine. "Allure", "Marie Claire", "Vanity Fair", "Newsday", "Rolling Stone", "Elle", "W", "Billboard", "Washington Post", "Entertainment Weekly", "Harper's Bazaar", "People", "Variety", "Seattle Times", "Toronto Star", "The Boston Globe", "Los Angeles Times", "The Daily Telegraph", "USA Today", "Maxim", "New York Daily News", "New York", "Us", and "The Advocate", ... magazine, newspaper, etc ... need to be in the work format. Ref. 18 "Calendar Drive" ---> Los Angeles Times. Ref. 33, 39, 47, 74, 75, 88, 91, 95, 96, 116, 117, 121, 127, 130, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 149, 166, 167, 168, 175, 180, and 184 are missing Publisher info.
    Philips's name is "like that" because it's not given in full at that part of the transcript (but is given before that part). Quotes must preserve original text. Some users have disagreed hostilely with me there for this article, even though the rules are clear and sane. --an odd name 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the dead links, I combed the article long ago to remove or get archives for dead links, and I got most or all of them. However, because Newsday is fucking greedy and I don't want to be the only person fixing links, I can't guarantee I'll get them all now.
    The real issue there is that some of those links lack any dates (publication or access), and are thus this close to becoming unverifiable. Authors, publishers, and dates (where available) should be added on the spot—not just to meet GA, but basic verifiability. In this case, publisher names should also be checked for consistency and the article generally needs a dusting of prose and ref style—if not now, then by the next FAC (if any). --an odd name 05:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on these. The trouble is the article seems to have fallen into disrepair since its glory days a few years ago. It would be nice to get it back up to FA, but GA would be fine for now. All feedback is appreciated, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Newsday reference can be verified through google news archives: [1][2] However, since it is a newspaper reference, it shouldn't need an online link, so I removed it. (and the deadref template.) Looking up the ref, I noticed that the sentence here was a direct unattributed quote from Newsday, so I rewrote it to avoid copyvio/plagiarism issues. It would also be possible to replace the 2005 separation reference with this[3] or this[4] People reference, but they only mention a "2005 separation", not December or that they signed a separation agreement. By the way, if you look at the article when it was featured, it wouldn't even come close to satisfying GA standards now.[5] Standards were really different in 2006. Siawase (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these are all done. It took me bloody ages to patch all those citations up. See if I've missed any. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, there's a couple that you missed, Ref. 31 is missing an accessdate, Refs. 79 and 119 are missing publisher info. Also, there's still a couple of dead links. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. those dead link aren't good. :( I'll see what I can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All links fixed. There's a Telegraph ref that's showing as dead on Checklinks but it works fine if you click on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All dead links has been dealt with, but Ref. 139 is a dead link. I didn't see that one, but the one I just mentioned is from The Advocate. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, removed. The fact it was citing has another ref and I couldn't find it on the internet archive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, The Advocate has been deleting its links, don't know why, but if there's another source to back that bit up, that's fine. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
    There seems to be an image problem with File:Lindsay Lohan 2.jpg.
    I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. It's got the wrong tag on it but it is free. It's on Commons, so I'll go over and see if I can fix it or get someone else to.
    Yeah, you do that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've fixed it on Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it on- you know I appreciate it (even if you do owe me a favour! :p) and I'll get to work on those later on! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: criteria 2

For some reason my reply section 2 is invisible above, so I'm reposting it here: The Newsday reference can be verified through google news archives: [6][7] However, since it is a newspaper reference, it shouldn't need an online link, so I removed it. (and the deadref template.) Looking up the ref, I noticed that the sentence here was a direct unattributed quote from Newsday, so I rewrote it to avoid copyvio/plagiarism issues. It would also be possible to replace the 2005 separation reference with this[8] or this[9] People reference, but they only mention a "2005 separation", not December or that they signed a separation agreement. By the way, if you look at the article when it was featured, it wouldn't even come close to satisfying GA standards now.[10] Standards were really different in 2006. Siawase (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the formatting so your comment shows up (I could have sworn I put nowiki tags around the pipe in my sig, but I've changed the code now anyway). As for the ref, it might be worth sticking in one of the People refs just for ease of verification. I'm working through this as time allows- I'm even busier than normal atm so apologies for the slow progress. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

Thank you to HJ Mitchell and an odd name, and whomever I forgot to mention, for working so hard to get this article to GA, because I have gone off and promoted the article. Congrats. ;) If anyone out there feels that this review is in error of some sort, please feel free to take it to a GA review reassessment. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the review, but could you please put the GA pass in the article history instead of in its own template? It's better to have the whole article history in one place. Lampman (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I realise that was being done almost at the exact same moment as I wrote the above message. Thanks! Lampman (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Lindsay_Lohan/GA1"