Jump to content

Talk:Gigi Goode/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Benmite (talk · contribs) 08:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

s This is my first GA review! Yay! benǝʇᴉɯ 08:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benmite, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this on User:Kbabej's radar as well as co-nominator. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Okay, so, looking at the article, I see some things that might prevent it from being GA status, namely that there are some MOS violations and the article has information that seems out of scope or unnecessary to include. I've made a list of suggestions that I think could help improve the article, and I'm going to request a second opinion since this is my first GA review.

@Benmite: Thanks for reviewing. I've responded to some of your comments already and will continue to work on this. Please be patient as I am dealing with the February 11–14, 2021 North American storm complex aftermath. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Benmite: Hello! Thanks for reviewing. This is my first GA co-nomination, and only second GA nomination overall, so I'm new to this process as well. Definitely willing to take any constructive criticism you feel will improve the article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whole article

[edit]
  • Too many repetitions of "Geggie" and "Gigi Goode", stick to pronouns - only use last name when necessary, and change "Gigi Goode" to "Goode" in those cases per MOS:SURNAME
    • "Goode" is not a true last name. Similar to other drag queen articles, we should use 'Gigi Goode' throughout. Also, we should be sure to use the correct pronouns for Geggie and the female persona Gigi Goode. I would say the name usage for this article is very similar to the other drag queen articles which have been promoted to Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to give my two cents, I think this article should keep its name and pronoun usage consistent with other drag queen articles, especially those also within the scope of WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. A couple GA-quality articles that could be used for reference are Honey Davenport and India Ferrah. Where the article discusses the subject's work in drag, the drag name and corresponding pronouns should be used. And where the article discusses the subject's personal life or work out of drag, the legal name and corresponding pronouns should be used. As for treatment of surnames: I don't believe this is enshrined in policy, but typically use of the last name alone is only for exceptional cases, such as when the subject is on record stating that they treat the last name as a surname (or perhaps when the subject belongs to an established drag family that identifies by a surname (such as the O'Hara, Davenport and Andrews clans). Otherwise, it's borderline WP:OR for us to decide whether multipart drag names contain surnames. For example, is Chi the surname of Kim Chi? Is Sport the last name of Jan Sport? Unless an RS can answer that, we default to using the full name. Armadillopteryx 00:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another Believer, Armadillopteryx: The aforementioned guideline states, "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used." Goode is clearly a recognizable pseudonymous surname: After using her full name, almost all of the sources either refer to her simply as Gigi ([1], [2], [3]) or Goode ([4], [5], [6]) and rarely, if ever, as Gigi Goode. Whether or not it is a true last name or other stuff exists is irrelevant if that other stuff goes against pre-established guidelines. Also, as far as Kim Chi and Jan Sport, I am almost positive that the joke in both of their names is that "Kim/Jan" are their first names and "Chi/Sport" are their last names, especially since Jan was known mononymously as Jan when she was on Drag Race. However, in Kim's case, it makes more sense to write her full drag name since that is how most sources refer to her, per WP:COMMONNAME. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more inclined to think Jan Sport and Kim Chi are like the case of Snoop Dogg insofar as they don't contain recognizable surnames. Jan Sport and Brita Filter had to go by Jan and Brita on the show for copyright reasons rather than personal choice, as far as I'm aware. I think this is actually the crux of the issue, indeed: it's not clear what counts as a recognizable surname for many (most?) drag queens. I do think it's reasonable to make such a case if a majority of RS tend to treat part of the name as a surname, though. I haven't perused the sourcing of the Gigi Goode article to see exactly what percentage of RS may use Goode by itself. Armadillopteryx 23:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Early life and education

[edit]
  • "Geggie was born..." → "Samuel Geggie[1] was born..."
  • PinkNews source states that Geggie's birthday is December 2 - use this
  • "Geggie's mother Kristi" → "Their mother, Kristi,"
  • "their uncle, who is openly gay" → "their openly gay uncle" (per MOS:REALTIME)
  • Change "started drag" (which should be "starting doing drag") to something more specific, such as "began performing onstage in drag" or "had their first (public?) gig as a drag queen" - Geggie clarifies in this ref that they were technically doing drag from an early age, but at 15, they officially had their first onstage gig as a drag queen
  • "As a teenager" → "At age 15" (per aforementioned reference)
  • "with the help of their mother, " → "Their mother, who initially disapproved of Geggie performing in drag, later helped them...[specify what she helped him with]"
  • Change "ET Online" in this reference to "Entertainment Tonight"
  • Cedar closet quote reads like fancruft - paraphrase or make separate section about their style of drag if there are enough reliable sources discussing it
    • I've trimmed. The most important bit was mentioning their mother's occupation, which I've relocated. Emphasis on their mother's occupation because many sources mention and the two have collaborated on outfits together. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and majored in" → "where they majored in"
  • "In 2017, they were awarded the David S. Monroe Art Award..." should be moved into previous sentence to make clear who gave them the award → "where they majored in art and were awarded the David S. Monroe Art Award." (description of award can be included)
  • Find better sources for Millikin University and David S. Monroe Art Award - first source does not specify that it is the same Sam Geggie being discussed, neither does the second source (second source is also a yearbook published by Millikin - a secondary source would be better anyway)
  • This source states that Geggie dropped out of college - if you can find better sources for their attending Millikin University, make mention of this in this section and in the lead's infobox
  • "After the family moved from Chicago to Los Angeles" - Ref doesn't confirm that their family moved with them to Los Angeles, so either find a source that substantiates that claim or remove it
  • If you do find a source to confirm that they and their family moved together: "the family" → "Geggie and their family"
  • "and changed to drag" - In source, Geggie states that they "got swept up" in drag (which they were already doing prior to that) not that they "changed" anything to drag; remove or find source to back this up and specify what was changed
  • Last sentence should be rewritten, if not removed entirely: "Geggie wanted to become an influencer and started an Instagram profile as a 'beauty boy in make-up' but found they hated the influencer culture" → "they started an Instagram account as a beauty influencer...[whatever you change the second half to]" (might have to be removed, since I'm not sure if someone starting an Instagram profile is encyclopedic information unless it can be established by a reliable source that it made an impact on their career)

References

  1. ^ Put the reference from the lead here

Career

[edit]
  • Should be introduced better: "Gigi Goode was the youngest contestant of the twelfth season of the reality competition series RuPaul's Drag Race" → "In 2020, Gigi Goode competed on the twelfth season of the reality competition series RuPaul's Drag Race, where she was the youngest contestant of the season.”
  • Second sentence ("Gigi Goode and her mother collaborated on many of the outfits she wore on the show") seems to just be repeating what was already established in the early life section ("As a teenager, Geggie started drag with the help of their mother…") and, in any case, would be better suited for another section
    • I disagree. None of the content is repeated. The early life section mentions their mother's support in general. The career section says their mother helped design outfits worn on the show, which I think this is an important detail in terms of crediting artistry. I'd prefer to keep details about the show grouped together. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "episodes 4, 6, 7 ("Madonna: The Unauthorized Rusical"), and 12" → "episodes 4, 6, 7, and 12"
  • Unless you plan on expanding the section to include further details about her performance on the show, remove Maria the Robot sentence
The immediate following sentence from Jezebel is about the performance. I've added the word 'Maria' in there to make it more clear what Jezebel is writing about. --Kbabej (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Praise from critics (Jezebel, EW, Harper's Bazaar, The Guardian) might be better if it was condensed/paraphrased (Something along the lines of: "Critics praised Goode’s performance on the show, highlighting her fashion and comedy skills") since it doesn't describe an actual event in her career
  • Remove "and fellow Drag Race contestant Valentina" + "and fellow Drag Race contestants Jaida Essence Hall and Shea Couleé"; the article is about Goode, not other Drag Race contestants (WP:OOS)
DONE

Personal life

[edit]

Filmography

[edit]

Discography

[edit]
  • Remove entirely - Goode has never appeared as a solo artist on any songs, and isn't actually credited as an artist on any of the songs listed here, at least on Apple Music

Awards and nominations

[edit]

Comments from Wugapodes

[edit]

I was brought from a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race where AB asked for additional feedback. The following are just my thoughts as I read through the article and not necessarily things that relate to the GA criteria, so don't take this as a to-do list but rather general comments for improvement.

  • The lead section is too short. Per MOS:LEAD it should be a brief overview of the important parts of the article. Currently, the lead doesn't mention much about Geggie's early life, education, or life after Drag Race despite the article touching on most of those subjects.
  • A lot of the prose suffers from WP:OVERCITE. Unless the text is highly controversial, having a citation at the end of the sentence is better than in the middle of a sentence. This is especially true when there are multiple citations throughout the sentence as it interrupts the reader's flow. For example this line from the article: Samuel Geggie[1] was born in Woodstock, Illinois,[3] and has Scottish and Scandinavian ancestry.[4] The footnotes break up the sentence and distract the reader with information that's not particularly important. Having all the citations at the end would be an improvement, and even better would be if they were bundled in a footnote.
  • The article says Geggie moved from Chicago to LA, but up to that point it never said that they had lived in Chicago specifically. Something more accurate like "from Illinois" or "from the Chicago-area" would be better.
  • The prose generally could be tied together better. Most sentences follow the same structure: "Geggie was ..." which is repetitive and doesn't tie the events together well. For example, the first sentence describes Geggie's birth and ancestry, and the second discusses their mother. These are related facts and the sentences should share more than placement. Consider something like "Geggie was born in Woodstock to Kristi Geggie, a costume designer. Their parents are of Scottish and Scandinavian descent."
  • Similarly, try to vary the sentence structure by fronting prepositions, especially where it helps move the narrative along. For example "At twelve years old, Geggie's uncle..." telegraphs to the reader that we're moving forward in time by putting Geggie's age first rather than later in the sentence.
  • The bit about wanting to become an influencer should probably be in the career section, but on the other hand I think that section would be better titled "Drag career" or something similar to set it apart from other aspects of the biography since "Career" is very broad.
  • The career section is scattered. For example, it names the episodes where Geggie was a winner, then moves right to Snatch Game, without giving context of where that occured within the season. The prose then gives critical reception of that performance before moving on to opinions of other critics regarding overall performance. The narrative would be stronger if it were organized by episode.
  • Provide context to the reader when mentioning co-stars and collaborators. For example, someone unfamiliar with drag race may not know who Valentina is or how she relates to Geggie. While these names are linked, we should not require the reader to go to a separate page to understand this article. For example: "In 2020, she and previous Drag Race contestant Valentina appeared in the music video..." For Jada and Shea, something similar can be done, but note that they were co-contestants with Goode.
  • Similarly, provide context for what Savage X Fenty is.
    • I'm going to push back here. I think what's important here is Gigi Goode's participation in a fashion show, not details about the specific brand. Editors who are unfamiliar with the brand can click on the link for more info, but at least with current wording they are learning the subject has modeled. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps, and please ping me if you want me to clarify anything or have questions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benmite: My fellow co-nominator and I have responded to all your points, I believe. Additionally, two other editors have weighed in. In some cases, preferences contradicted each other, so you may need to review closely to see if you're comfortable with the current state of the article or not. I should also note, this article was reviewed by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. Please let us know which concerns need to be addressed further, if any. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benmite: I don't mean to bother, but are you planning to revisit this discussion? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Sorry! I've been kind of all over the place lately. My current decision is that it does pass as a GA, but I'm gonna request a second opinion. If no one says anything in the next few days then I guess I'll just say it passes. benǝʇᴉɯ 18:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite, OK, thanks for the update! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benmite, Been a few weeks. There haven't been any concerns raised or edit conflicts since your review, which to me suggests the text is generally acceptable and any disagreements moving forward can be tackled on the article's Talk page. Are you still wanting to wait for a second opinion here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer: Sorry! Passing the article now. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion

[edit]

I'll help out with a second opinion; should be able to complete this soon. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Goode 2nd Opinion

[edit]

Starts Second Opinion; the review will follow the same sections of the Article.

 

 

Observations

[edit]
The live link works for me as well. --Kbabej (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Kbabej The live link works for me as well. Might be better to go with the live link, then. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some balance in reporting criticism of Gigi Goode vis-a-vis Britney, and "I Can't Breathe". Appropriate inclusion.

 

Final

[edit]
  • This is a thorough, comprehensive review with full cooperation and interaction from both nominees.
  • Wugapodes' observations about citations is spot on. The survey said that 66% of references are not used.
  • With regard to prose, WP:PROSELINE is a good guide to construction. The Career section is sufficiently robust and does not need further editing.
  • We need to settle the issue of pronouns in the article, and there should be a reference to genderfluid in the lede, and consistent use of they, their in the article and no usage of she.
  • @Another Believer:@Kbabej: If we can fix the fiddly bits raised, then the GA process might be able to proceed to closure;
  • @Benmite: Recommend passing the review. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whiteguru, Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whiteguru I second that - thank you! This is my second GA article review and has been a good experience. --Kbabej (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteguru: Thank you so much for your comments! benǝʇᴉɯ 16:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: Re: pronouns, this article is written consistently with other drag queen articles, including those about Drag Race queens which have been promoted to Good article status. There are several ongoing discussions about how pronouns should be used in such entries, but we should decide standards across all entries and work to maintain consistency where possible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:, Yes, I went hunting around Wiki Projects for LGBT to see if there was a defined policy on one of the projects. Unfortunately, too many projects, and I missed out on finding a central WikiProject for LGBT where notability issues, style, content might be laid out definitively. Do you know of a central WikiProject that does this? --Whiteguru (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteguru, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies even has Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Multiple_pronouns right now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Was slow to type and link all this because I'm on mobile x)
Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Its talk page has an ongoing discussion about pronoun use in articles like this. There have also been past discussions about drag queen pronouns in particular, such as here and here and here. Armadillopteryx 02:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Armadillopteryx: Thanks for that, and thanks for all the links. I can see a clear case for hatnotes, and a *very* clear case for CoffeeandCrumbs Template. This as been a useful discussion. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gigi_Goode/GA1&oldid=1142358234"