Talk:Xiaxue

refs

References showing that xiaxue made racist remarks, insulted handicapped people, insulted christians, is unpopular and is definitely not a celebrity. Read the entries, the related entries as well as the comments.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk) December 2, 2005

AFD

please no... AFD!!!! __earth ^(Talk) 12:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an AFD! Non-Notable everyday Singaporean. Mods please list it thanks. 202.156.6.54 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? She's definitely not unknown, and is internationally one of the best known female bloggers. Check out the links on the page, and realise that she doesn't qualify for deletion on any instance. Hauser 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Xiaxue urges her readers to update her page

Xiaxue urged her readers earlier to update her page[12], and resented the fact that Wikipedia editors "can't be bothered to upload a chio photo of me despite me splattering them all over the place."

To all of her readers that may follow her link here and happen to see this, I draw your attention to WP:FU, which states that "any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: 1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." Thus, grabbing one of her "chio photo[s]" that she did not license under an acceptable free license or release into the public domain is prohibited. Please do not do what Xiaxue seems to want us to do, that is, grab a photograph off her blog and upload it onto Wikipedia. Instead, wait for someone else to take a photograph of her and license it under an acceptable free license or release it into the public domain, do this yourself, or wait for her to license her photograph(s) accordingly.

I'm saying this because her blog supposedly attracts up to 20 000 readers per day, many of whom would probably not be familiar with Wikipedia policies and are immediately marshalled to upload a photograph of her. —Goh wz 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could ask her to provide a photograph that she agrees, in writing (e-mail or whatever), to release under the GFDL. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the picture because it has so much crap on it and does not fit the tone of an encyclopedia. Please have a non-animated picture. Secondly, we need something a bit more explicit as to permission given; i.e. it has to be GFDL-compliant. Whoever uploads the image should include the text of the e-mail in the copyright tag. Best case, get her to write something on her blog confirming it so we can verify that she has indeed given permission. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of website added. This should resolve under WP:FU Cocoma 11:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

i think there is a need to talk about Vandalism since it is so rampant. it is to be expected since she has offended quite a lot of people. please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relaxtoda (talk • contribs) January 17, 2007

"Xiaxue" or "Cheng"?

Should the article refer to her as "Xiaxue" or "Cheng"? I personally prefer "Xiaxue", but I'm not familiar with the Manual of Style. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Xiaxue, since most people refer to her by that name usually. Keep it the same for now. Terence 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Xiaxue on youths in Singapore

In my opinion the statements contained in this section are not written from a neutral perspective and thus do not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you Deconstructhis 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Xiaxue → Wendy Cheng, Cheng Yanyan or Wendy Cheng Yanyan — Should be moved to her actual name. In any case, xiaxue is a Chinese phrase meaning "It's snowing". — —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Unconvincing. What is she usually called? We should use that, as we do Atrios. The Chinese phrase is not a problem, unless we (rather than Wiktionary) should have an article on it, which I doubt; compare Cher, although cher is a French word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names). You'll notice from the articles external links that Xiaxue is what she's referred to. And xiaxue is not a "Chinese phrase meaning 'It's snowing'." It's a romanization of 下雪 which is a Chinese phrase meaning "It's snowing." This might be an ambiguous title if this was Wiktionary or Chinese Wikipedia but there's no ambiguity at an English encyclopedia. — AjaxSmack 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. No case made in terms of WP:NC; As noted, external links indicate that the current article name is correct. Andrewa (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

There's no serious question that she's a notable blogger. See http://www.xiaxue-media.blogspot.com/ for her "media center" which includes a couple dozen instances of coverage in print media and television. Outside of what she's collected herself, http://www.straitstimes.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=1f435ce1e874c110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=19e4758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD is an article in the Straits Times documenting the controversy with Lang. I'm deleting the {{Notability}} tag. TJRC (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability, again

How in the name of F*CK does this person deserve a wikipedia page? OK, she blogs, she tweets, then what? There's tons of internet personalities who are much more famous and still not found in wikipedia. Whoever started this page is either an idiot or herself. Please dont pollute the environment for true useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.199.250.253 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitter much? This article needs work but she's clearly notable enough to warrant one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.143.27 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs, notability etc.

Hi all

I copyedited this article recently and put a note-to-self to come back when I had a little free time.

• Some of the refs are dodgy as there are few urls for anyone to check the validity of the claims. One ref says "my paper" as the source!!
• Are the Wizzbang LLC awards notable enough? They do not appear to be according to Blog award
• The last one is a primary source and a self reference, xiaxue.blogspot.com, and is definitely getting removed - she could change it to "received a BSc. in blogging from MIT" and obviously, as she can put whatever she likes, is totally unacceptable as a source.

While I appreciate that an editor that has worked on GAs has worked on it, the issue here is about this article and the sources and information this article contains.

I suggest that some thought is given to improving the validity and reliability of the sources and information used. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Chaosdruid, and thanks for your feedback! Having written GAs, I take the quality of what I write seriously. My responses are as follows:

• There really is a Singaporean newspaper called my paper (better known by its Chinese name, 我报 or Wo Bao). The Straits Times, The Sunday Times, The Business Times and TODAY are all mainstream Singaporean newspapers and reliable (despite complains about our unfree press). Some of the offline references were found through Xiaxue's own compilation of newspaper/magazine articles about her, but most were obtained through Factiva. In general, Factiva only indexes articles from reliable sources.
• I am not an expert on blogging awards, so I cannot be sure that the Wizbang LLC Awards are notable, though my research did not reveal any reasons to significantly doubt their notability. Perhaps we could ask the folks at WikiProject Blogging, who would be in a much better position to evaluate their notability?
• Wikipedia policy permits the use of self-published sources for information about themselves, under limited circumstances. Does the use of one of her blogs as a reference for the schools she studied at fall under these limited circumstances? I did not contest the removal of a sentence (referenced to the same blog of hers) that she practices a religion called "Wendism", because that information was absurd. If she claimed that she had "received a BSc. in blogging from MIT", that would also be absurd (I assume MIT does not offer degrees in blogging) and I would be happy to remove it. However, the schools she claimed she attended do exist and do not raise any red flags (they are not particularly prestigious). Perhaps we could seek input from other editors who are highly familiar with the sourcing and BLP policies? If the use of her blog as a reference for such information is deemed unacceptable, then I would question the viability of the Personal life section itself, though I am sure that if Jacklee helped me do another Factiva search, we could find a reliable reference for information on her brother and husband (the draft of this article was written before she married him and was thus outdated).

Once again, thanks for your input, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I raised my last point was that a google news search, though obviously not fully satisfactory, gives no results for Xiaxue or Wendy Cheng when combined with Singapore polytechnic There should surely be a Singaporean paper or magazine that can be quoted on that matter? Selfpub also stipulates that this information is "usually in articles", rather than a webpage claiming "I am a superstar", though I agree it is not self-serving nor apparently contentious (though I suspect that certain details in it are, such as: "Spoken Languages" = "Elfish" and "talks to ants") the education aspect does not appear to be. There is one ref to it, though I do not know their reliability: Readers Digest.

There is also this snippet in a Singapore Arts Council PDF, listing her in a 2005 writers festival, which refers to her with an extended (full?) name - p.111 Wendy Cheng Yan Yan

Most importantly from my point of view is that using her "in the media" page without url's the articles quoted cannot be checked. While I appreciate the mention that "Factiva only indexes articles from reliable sources." there are no links to those indexed articles or their entries, or the fact that they come from Factiva as publisher, rather than the newspapers and magazines themselves. Jack will most certainly be able to help I am sure, he has knowledge of archiving sites and so should be able to come up with something ;¬)

the blogging wikiproject seems like it is a little devoid of action over the last year, though you may strike it lucky.

I am not "dissin' yo' style", but rather hoping that such an interesting article can pass muster with regard to verifiability :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you are not dissing my style, for I am also concerned about verifiability. Glad you find the article interesting! I have found newspaper articles (thanks, Jacklee, for the Factiva search!) stating that she studied in Singapore Polytechnic and is married to Mike. These references have been added to the Personal life section. Hope that addresses most of your concerns. As far as I know, newspaper and magazine articles, as well as books, that are not available online, are perfectly acceptable as references (otherwise Wikipedia would suffer from FUTON bias, worsening our systemic bias). Factiva is not the publisher of the articles (the publishers are the newspapers), just as Google is not the publisher of a Wikipedia article that shows up in their search results. . --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It can never be repeated often enough: there is no requirement that a reference be to a source available online; none whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have perhaps missed the point here Mike. The issue is not that there are refs without urls, rather it is the source for them which, as far as I can make out from the explanation, is that they appear to be taken verbatim from a self-published list that Xiaxue has on her blogsite, rather than from the original published sources. My request was that someone verifies them, or puts urls so that we can all verify them. For example "Who says I have a foul mouth" is taken from this image which is difficult to read and cited five times. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The references from Go Digital and Hardware Zone magazines, plus one newspaper article (cannot remember which one, checking would take a long time), are the only three offline references that I obtained through her media centre (and for all three references, the images were not difficult to read at all). The remaining 12 (out of 15) offline references were obtained from the Factiva database, although some (including the example you mentioned) were also on her media centre. I had read a few of the newspaper articles in their respective newspapers before, so I have no reason to doubt the reliability of Factiva as an archiver.

"Yan Yan" is a romanisation of her Chinese name. If we included it, we would also have to include the Chinese characters (and the Chinese characters of Xiaxue), cited to a reliable Chinese-language reference (and we would have to be wary of potential BLP issues from doing so). Last but not least, I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging asking about the notability of the Wizbang awards.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have directly asked a member off the list at project blogging, rjansen, to take a look as it has been 7 days. No particular reason other than I looked at three and they were the most active. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Needs to have more content to pass.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I think a lot of content is missed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Vandal edit war, failed section.

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):

   One picture. A Good Article needs more.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   – Plarem ^{(User | talk | contribs)} 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• A lot more content is going to be needed.
• A lot more pictures are going to be needed.
• Since a lot more content, then you need to verify it.
• Block the page to vandals.
• Add sub-titles (Level 3, Lvl. 4) (=== ===; ==== ====)
• When finished I encourage you to nominate the article again.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xiaxue/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk • contribs • count) 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Please see comments below, under 'MOS issues' and 'Prose' issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are enough references to the amount of content, the sources are Ok and this contains no original reasearch.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments below. The article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All seems fair to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   The article is stable, it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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):

   No non-free media; see comments below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. First of all I must point out, that this is a START class article.
2. MOS issues

   1. Please see WP:CAP for the caption guidelines. The current picture is Ok, but the caption is not. It does not provide relevance to the topic. It says:

      Adrianna Tan and Xiaxue (right).

      It does not say where, it does not say when OR it doesn't say why (if possible).

   2. The minute I started reading it, I found it was incomplied with WP:OVERLINK. It specifically says:

      Avoid linking plain English words.

      As a rule of thumb (see below), link on first reference only.

      It is linked with plain English words, and some words are linked on other references too.

   3. And, as this is a biography article, this has to comply with MOS:BIO, which is the Manual of Style for Biographies. According to MOS:BIO, the article (in the opening paragraph) should have Xiaxue's:

      • Name(s) and title(s), if any.  Done
      • Dates of birth and death, if known.  Not done
      • Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);  Done

      • In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
      • Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

      • What the person did;  Done
      • Why the person is significant.  Done

3. Prose issues

   1. As I was reading this, I realised that her diary has nothing to do with a blog.

      The 'Personal Life' section should be expanded and two new subcategories should be made: 'Early Life' and 'Present'. And in the 'Early Life' section should be the story about her diary, which led to her starting her blog.

   2. The 'Controversy' section in the article should be in the 'Blog' section as a third level header. (=== Example ===)
   3. This article should have an infobox at the top, as most biographies have.

4. This article has omitted a section called 'Early Life'.
5. This article needs a lot of work done before it can be passed.

FAIL — This is a Start-Class article, so PLEASE do not ask for another assessment. You have gotten recommendations from me, so there you go. This article DOES NOT BY FAR reach the GA criteria (WP:WIAGA) Thank you, – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. You have raised some valid concerns, so I will not appeal the outcome of the review. In a few weeks, you would see the article nominated again, with your concerns addressed. Since you are new to GA reviewing, I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and seek advice from a mentor. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, but PLEASE have the article go through C-Class and B-Class before it is nominated again. You cannot skip C and B class before you go to GA standards. And can you inform me when it is renominated again? I would like to review it in a future time. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 17:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Last I knew, there was nothing explicit about going through each class. Yes, it is more typical, but not required. Chris857 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xiaxue/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I'll be taking this review.

Comments

Firstly I'd like to depart from the previous reviewer's combative style and say that this is overall an OK article. There is no need to go trough any other classes at all before applying for GA status. At the moment, however, the question is the difference is between an OK article and a "Good" one. The major problem is coverage, I think. It's not bad, and I appreciate the difficulties of an online personality, but we are missing some things in her life:

• I think it would help if more of the article was bibliographical/chronological in order. Consider putting the "Personal life" section first, and merging some of "achievements" into it, specifically the parts about her past jobs. The parts about her current blogs can go under "blog".
• This would make it easier to see that we are missing information about her previous jobs. You note that she worked for several noteworthy organizations. What were her roles (regular/occasional; what sort of column)? When she start and leave?
• Infobox maybe?
• How has the blog been described or critiqued in general? You note controversies, but what is the general reception?
• Some more information needed for refs 8, 9 and 10 - at least an access/retrieval date. Consider using {{cite web}}.
• The prose is good; will look over this again when the additions are made.
• The image is fine. The caption seems slightly odd, I would expect both left and right to be labelled as such (even if using only one is technically clear!). I would say you had a strong case for a fair use screenshot of her blog, but this isn't compulsory.
• On hold for seven days; this is only a guide. I don't fail articles where the work is in progress, so long as the end is in sight. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I have added retrieval dates for the four web references. Not using cite tags is a stylistic choice. Her other jobs are under the Achievements section because she earned these jobs due to her success as a blogger. In other words, these jobs reflect a blogger moving into more mainstream forms of media. Will go through my sources again to find and add more details about these jobs, as well as general critique of her blog. If I remember correctly, she worked as an event manager before she started blogging; will search my sources for more information about that. By the way, writing articles about American online personalities is easy (look at the "on Twitter" GANs); this is difficult to write because the online personality is from an island nation in Southeast Asia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I did say consider: my point was about the sort of information given in the reference to ensure verifiable; the mainstream templates may help as a prompt for that. I notice the layout and content has not yet been altered. It doesn't have to be like I suggest, of course, but I do think ground needs to be made up in this area. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am still going through the sources and was waiting for your clarification before doing any actual changes, which would be made over the weekend. Could we agree that although the current organisation of content is fine, there should be more details about her jobs and general critique of her blog? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk)

Could the hold period be extended to the end of the month? I am still waiting for your confirmation, without which I would not know exactly what needs to be done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is more information about her, rather than her blog, and a layout of the article that better reflects the distinction. At the moment the layout, where her blog spans three sections, but is mixed with biographical details, muddies the waters. A clearer structure and I think the lack of information would be clearer. (Also, don't worry about the hold.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Blog section is about the origins and content of her blog, but how could I explain the origins without providing some biographical details for context? For the Achievements section, the first paragraph is about achievements of the blog, while the second focuses on achievements of the person (albeit derived from her success as a blogger). Perhaps this could be made clearer by rewording several sentences. Such a distinction is difficult to make in the Controversy section, since all the controversies (except for the accusations of abusing her position as a Tomorrow.sg editor) were caused by blog posts. In fact, I wonder whether such a distinction can be made for an online personality, whose blog is about her life and whose life is about her blog. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(undent) Well, as I say, there are two bits: content and layout. I'll see to the layout if you can provide the content, which I'm confident exists. Details about her life, where she lives, her previous jobs, age/birthday, that sort of thing. The article mentions she blogs about it, and I imagine there must be sources we can cite that have parroted it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Asian people and media are generally more respectful of the private lives of celebrities, so not much information has been "parroted" in reliable sources. Some details were intentionally excluded as too trivial (her favourite colour) or potentially BLP-violating (her birthday). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'm looking to garner a second opinion specifically on the issue of 3(a): it addresses the main aspects of the topic (of course, other comments are always welcome). I'm away for a week, so this makes sense - I'll assess any comments/edits after, if a second opinion has been given. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll chime in here. I don't think it meets the main aspects criterion. The article lacks basic details about the subject, including her birthdate. How old is she? What about an info box? The nominator has not responded to this issue. While this falls outside of 3(a), I'd also note that most of the references are not linked, which is frustrating for readers because it's impossible to judge the reliability of the sources without being able to read them. There are also some minor prose clarity and grammar issues, in my view, e.g. "Wanting to air her thoughts in a space that nobody can throw away" should be "could throw away" since the remainder of the sentence is in the past tense. And I'd echo the concern with sticking to a strict chronology within sections wherever possible. Also see WP:PLUSING for the last sentence of the lead, and try to rephrase.--Batard0 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for references to be available online to be considered reliable. In fact, offline sources, such as books and newspaper articles, are usually more reliable than websites. I have corrected the grammatical error that you pointed out and would appreciate if you pointed out more. Not including an infobox was a stylistic choice and there is no suitable infobox anyway; someone actually added Template:Infobox actor in the past! Be careful about encouraging the inclusion of information which may violate our biographies of living persons policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with offline sources, but if they're offline, we should really be saying page numbers. If not, courtesy links would be helpful where possible. Title, publication, date is nice, but authors, links and page numbers are also important. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that many of these articles are available online. Why are you so keen not to provide links? J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Will recheck and add links for articles which are available online. All offline references were found through Factiva, which only includes author information for some articles (I can add them if necessary). Page numbers for newspaper articles; seriously? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Four of the newspaper references are available online. You already linked reference 5, while I added links to references 12 and 18. However, I did not link reference 19 because the website seems neither reliable nor affiliated with the newspaper, thus it may be violating copyright. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly help to have some more information about her. I was also wondering how old she was. If you don't want to add an exact date (not a BLP violation if it is reliably published) then even a year would do. As far as 3a goes, you can only provide details that are reasonably available. If they are not then even if the article appears to be missing information it can still pass. I think it would help to move some of the Personal Info to the start of the body. It seemed weird to start straight into the blogging without properly introducing the person. An "Early Life" section, or even "Early Life and Blog" heading if that will be too short, would be better in my opinion. I also have a pet hate with stand alone controversy sections, much better integrating them into the articles other sections. They tend to lean into undue territory and are a magnet for POV edits. This one doesn't seem to bad, not fail worthy anyway, but it does take up about one third of the article, which could lead to BLP concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

When would her blog be an acceptable source for information about her (assuming reliable sources have not "parroted" said information)? For example, she mentions her birthday on her FAQ page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say her blog is reliable for simple facts about herself. Treat it like any other primary source. For her birthday it is probably the most reliable source short of a birth certificate, she should know her own birthday. She has made the date quite clear there so I don't see anything wrong with us repeating it here. AIRcorn (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Added her birthday, cited to her FAQ page, and examining potential further uses of her blog as a source, but I expect them to be very limited. I hope other GA reviewers agree with you, as I do not want the outcome of my nominations to depend on which reviewer I get. Perhaps the time has come to dig into Chinese references too. Where do we go from here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable depends very much on what information they are supporting. Too many primary ones can lead to issues with notability so it is better to use secondary ones where possible. Chinese sources are fine too. They can be hard to verify for us reviewers, but you should not let that stop you if there are no English equivalents and they contain useful information. Putting a short translation in the footnote will help and a a certain amount of good faith can be assumed (i.e. if there are no problems with other sources then I would be more inclined to except foreign ones I can't properly verify). As far as this review goes the final decision on whether this meets the criteria will be made by Grandiose. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for this to see if much came of it. I've reordered the article the way I suggested before (more or less) which highlights the her/her blog distinction. As I suspected, it does rather demonstrate how little the article covers her life. There are details there, but I don't believe they give us enough of a picture. The article mentions " TODAY and , Maxim magazine, Snag magazine and the "STOMP" Star Blog" but we don't get any more details. (Oh, and this has a different marriage date.) This might be useful. Also anything she's written would be an appropriate source for uncontroversial details about her life, and considering that the blog is at least in part about her, I still believe there is more to say; if there isn't, then perhaps this article would be better about the blog, mentioning her. There's only been one article (out of perhaps 30 biographies) that I've passed as a GA shorter than this, and that was about an Anglo-Saxon King where no sources continue to exist. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The PDF reference is already in the article as reference 9, but I was not aware of the other reference, which was released after I nominated the article, so thanks for pointing it out. I would like to know what other reviews, especially Aircorn, think of your proposed reorganisation of the article. If I start using Chinese newspapers and her blog (with extreme discretion), then I can certainly add more information about her life. However, a short article can still be broad, especially when the subject is from an island nation in Southeast Asia. For example, see Yip Pin Xiu, a GA about a disabled Singaporean swimmer, also written by yours truly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the reorganisation. To me it makes more sense to discuss her life before getting into the blog. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you requested a second opinion, I thought I'd interject -- with a few comments:

• The lede does not properly summarize the article. The first half of the "Life" section is not there at all. Her education and early life are not mentioned. The "Blogs" section, and its "Controversy" subsection, are covered just fine.

• The article mentions that she obtained "a diploma" -- naming the specific degree would probably help here, though we can do without it if none of the sources give specifics.

• "[B]itchy, provocative writing style" is in no way proper encyclopedic writing. Prefix a "what is perceived as" to it, and the situation would improve, but only just slightly.

• Her "success has been attributed", by who? In cases where we're dealing with specific claims of opinion, those opinions need to be attributed inline, not just via citations. We have the same problem with the "outrageous antics" quote -- who describes said antics as outrageous?

• All these words need to go: "geeky"; "rants" (in the first paragraph of the "Blogs" section); "haters"; and especially "offensive", in the lede.

Hope this helps. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

I believe there is a clear consensus that the article currently does not meet the GA criteria. Thanks, reviewers, for clearly highlighting several issues and constructively indicating what should be done. Leaving the nomination on hold would create pressure to rush through improvements, so I would like to withdraw the nomination or have it failed. After going through Chinese sources and her blog, adding more information about her personal life and sending the article for a copyedit, I will renominate it, hoping that the next reviewer does not object to the use of Chinese sources.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I was going to reply above. I can certainly withdraw/fail the review for you, although I would just say that you shouldn't be disheartened. If someone tells you non-English sources are not OK, ping me and I'll show them what's what. As for her blog, WP:SELFPUB gives details; stay within them and clearly that's fine. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have my support for using Chinese sources where appropriate too. Us reviewers aren't the be all and end all of Wikipedian knowledge and you should feel free to question any of them if you don't agree with a suggestion. Most good reviewers will listen to you and as Grandiose implies (I think), in the end if it follows our policies it is good enough to be Good. AIRcorn (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I think this page should be deleted. This meets Wikipedia's policies for speedy deletion. Please feel free to contest with my motion. She's just an ordinary blogger. Other much more prominent and notable blogs like TOC and Minister for National Development's blog were not added in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Speedy. The article clearly does not qualify for A7: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." If you still believe it should be delted, see WP:AFD. TJRC (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

With multiple Best Asian Blogs awards and an inclusion in the Technorati Global Top 100 Blogs list, her notability extends beyond Singapore, where she has worked for national newspapers and television. By the way, Wikipedia does have an article on The Online Citizen. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions from Wikipedian Penguin

I've looked at the article, which seems generally well written. A few tips for language:

• No need to link Singapore(an).

  Not done The country that she is from is relevant to her notability and many readers would be unfamiliar with the Little Red Dot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Her main blog, which attracts over 20,000 readers per day, has won prestigious blog awards and earned her sponsorship deals, as well as stints as a columnist and TV show host." – "more than" is always nicer than "over" in these places. Also, "Her main blog, which attracts more than 20,000 readers daily, has earned her blog awards, sponsorship deals and stints as a columnist and television show host." is tighter and flows better. Notice the removal of "prestigious", which I fear may be a subjective word to use.
• "However, she is a contentious figure in the Singaporean blogosphere, with some of her posts sparking national controversies." – "however" is usually too unhelpful to use. It's not particularly needed here. It only seems expected that a famous blogger would cause controversy. Speaking of cause, I think it's a better word than "spark" due to tone here.

  Done Thanks for the insights into English grammar! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "she also has a younger brother.[3] When she was younger" – If there is a possible work around from "younger" being twice so close together, it would improve readability.

  Done Should be obvious that she kept the paper diary when she was younger, so replaced that clause. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quotations such as "spring clean" need citations.

  Done differently That was not a quotation. I removed the quotation marks, which were added by another editor. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Awkward tense: "she met online and had dated for three years" – simple past, then past perfect, even though the initial event occurred before the one after. "met" should be past perfect too.
• Unclear: what's a "geeky blog"?
• Why is "snowing" linked? Might it be because it doesn't happen in Singapore AFAIK?

  Comment You are correct that snowing does not happen in Singapore. Since it is the English translation of her pseudonym, I linked it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "per day" → "daily".
• Redundant, remove "various": "...and posts paid advertorials about various products."
• "young adults, into fashion" → "young adults interested in fashion"

  Done Good one! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also unclear is what "alternative voices" means.

  Done, please check Added quotation marks, as I was quoting the source. Conservative Singaporeans are not known for expressing opinions (especially non-mainstream ones). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some uses of "also" are not necessary, such as in "She also has her own fortnightly series", "She was also accused of impersonating another blogger", "She also has a heated rivalry with blogger Dawn Yang"

  Doing Removed some instances of "also" and trying to determine which of the remaining instances are necessary. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the controversy section, the language gets a little repetitive: (she was this, she was also this, etc.). Try to reduce this repetition.

Hope this helps. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! 谢谢你！ --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; the changes are looking fine so far. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Note

User:Hildanknight has sadly withdrawn his nomination. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xiaxue/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this! More to come. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯

Images

• Out of date... I suggest you try to find more pictures to enhance this page. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Needs to be expanded a bit to comply with WP:LEAD. Except for a birth date and name, I don't see the slightest mention of her birth in the lede. Possibly could add lines like "Born in Singapore, blah blah blah"... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• No need to link "Singaporean" per WP:MOS. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Either stick to a serial comma or don't. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Infobox? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Other

• Blogs. Other media, controversy, etc., could be lumped up into one "Career" section with subsequent sub-sections. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Content-wise, there's much more to work on. See also. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

References

• If it's a dead link, please tag it as one. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• I just don't understand why you don't like giving online links. C'mon, it's the 21st century! If you found them on Factiva, add the Factiva link! Really, you should start using more online sources. We are not talking about 13th century witches here. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Further verification: Page numbers to newspaper sections. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

External links

• Consider WP:SPAM ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. Pretty good so far. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested restructure

Hi- I don't want to commit to conducting a GA review right now (though I may later) but I am not convinced that the current structure is ideal. I'd recommend something like

[Lead]
-Early life
-Media career
--Blogging
---Controversy
--Other media
-Personal life
-References

The "controversy" seems to all be about blogging, while the other media is obviously still a part of her media career. Meanwhile, there seems to be something a little odd about running together her life pre-career with her personal life during her career. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also added a number of categories- I hope none of these are controversial. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the category additions, all of which were helpful and uncontroversial. Restructuring the article would require a significant rewrite, followed by another round of copyediting, thus rendering the article unstable. Several different structures have been proposed, but each (including the current one) has its weaknesses. Splitting information about her early life into a separate section would create two very short and disjointed sections. The Controversy section reflects that she is as notable for controversy as for her achievements. Nevertheless, merging the Controversy section into the other sections may give a false impression of the reception towards her blog and other media. Not all the controversy originated from blog posts; the iPhone video was from her Guide to Life series and Tomorrow.sg is, as mentioned, a blog aggregator website. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xiaxue/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 18:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this article shortly. Hopefully we can get a real review here finally. Wizardman 18:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I read through the article twice, and didn't see any issues. As a result I will pass this article as a GA. Wizardman 19:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)