Talk:Elisha Cuthbert/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

The article went through an FA review in June 2006, and some of the issues that failed it still remain. The prose is clunky, and the lead is too short. There is also a tendency for information to simply be listed, without contributing context or significance.

Lead - apart from being too short, 24 needs to go in the first sentence, since this is what she is primarily known for. It is not logical to have it come at the end.
Early life - Too few refs, particularly as WP:BLP issues come into play here.
Early career - The paragraph on 24 simply lists her appearances. It should mention the significance to her career, critical reception etc.
2003-2005: Commercial success - The two first paragraphs are single-sentence, and there's a "citation missing" tag. Te rest goes into more depth, the 24 section should have been the same.
2006-2007: Career transition - The Quiet: how did it do?
2008-present: Current and future projects - Just a listing of current and future projects, no context.
Personal life - The second paragraph is mostly a listing of various men's magazine rankings. This is unneccassary; a couple of examples would do.
External links - Is the Russian site really "official"? Lampman (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment: 24 should not go in the first sentence. WP:ACTOR is working hard to remove all instances of "So-and-so is an actor best known for playing X in Y" since it is quite often hard to objectively prove (especially for currently-working actors) and more often than not is original research, recentist, and is not neutral. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a few seconds to find a reliable source to support it (The Hollywood Reporter), though self-evident facts like that don't really need sourcing. Surely it should be possible to assess this on a case-to-case basis? In any case, this was not the major problem. No significant changes has been made (except her father being called a pedophile for a short while, and people still resent flagged revisions...), so I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]