Talk:Katie Hopkins/GA1

GA Review

I am reviewing this article - details comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are my detailed comments.

In reviewing this article my standpoint has been that, for better or worse, Katie Hopkins is of sufficient note or notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article, and that the normal GA criteria should be applied.

The standard of prose remains well below that expected of a good article. The general tone is often unencyclopedic and "magaziney", and presentation is frequently slipshod. Here are some examples of what I mean.

• Prose: There are many poorly worded and/or punctuated sentences. Samples follow – there are plenty more:-
  • "It is only after, contrary to popular belief, that she met fellow co-worker Paul Collins…"
  • "Although these comments might have been offensive to some, she insisted in her You're Fired Show, that it was only in the name of comedy, and suggested she 'just needed to vent a bit'"
  • "Reports originally suggested that the couple romped in the attic of the house in which the candidates were living, however Callagahan vehemently denied this".
  • "Hopkins wrote a column for the Express and Echo newspaper in Exeter, much to the criticism of its readers, but was eventually asked to leave after a poll was put onto the publication's website asking if she should continue with the post".
  • The word "whilst" also appears.

• Tone: Expressions like "dumped", "took up a job", "Met Office", and the frequent references to her as "Katie" (and a reference to her one-time lover as "Damien") are not suitable for an encyclopaedia, nor is a sentence ending "dependent on your opinion". The general tone is that of a gossipy magazine column, without encylopedic objectivity; the presentation of Ms Hopkins is almost uniformly negative.

• Slipshod - again, examples:-
  • The article says: "After filming The Apprentice Hopkins took a job with the Met Office in Exeter." Citation [2] takes us to an on-line article that makes it clear she was working for the Met Office in January 2006. So either The Apprentice was filmed before January 2006, or the statement in the article is wrong.
  • She appeared "in", not "on", the third series of The Apprentice
  • It would surely have been possible to have included dates for such events as her time at Exeter University, her time at RMA Sandhurst, and her Big Brother pilot, since these events are all cited to sources.
  • The Apprentice is sometimes italicized in the article, sometimes not
  • The magazine is Heat, not "heat".

Part of the problem with the article is the number of contributors, some of whom are clearly better with words than others. Nothing can be done about that, until Ms Hopkins’s notoriety abates somewhat and more stability is achieved. Also, far too many references are to sources that an encyclopaedia would not judge reliable (blogs, tabloid gossip). [38] is broken; [69] seems to have been put in for its obscenity value rather than its relevance to the article. Also, the "I’m a Celebrity" image lacks a fair use rationale.

I think at present the article is very far removed from GA status, with inconsistent prose quality, questionable sources and lack of objectivity as its chief flaws. I'm sorry, but I don't think that these are short term issues that can be fixed quickly. A summary of this review is as follows:

• Prose quality: Fail
• Accurate and verifiable: Fail
• Breadth of coverage: Pass
• Neutral: Marginal
• Stability: Marginal/fail
• Images: Marginal

Overall: Fail

Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)