Talk:Hee Seo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 06:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. Thank you for the note and I will keep it in consideration when looking at the images. Will have the comments up by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• As something to fix for the entire article, the period at the end of a sentence (or comma) only goes inside the quote mark if you're quoting an entire sentence. Also make sure footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark such that there is no space in between.
• Clarify what you mean by “worked their way up”
• Clarify the following sentence (“She is also one of the youngest dancers in ABT history to be promoted to principal at twenty-six.”) by adding “at the age of twenty-six”
• The following sentence (The New York Times described "her dancing and fluid line [to] exude an unhurried purity that sums up all that is lovely about ballet" and by Vogue as "unspeakable lissome”) does not make much sense and is very awkwardly phrase. Restructure it to make it clear that you are referring to the commentary on her dancing style. Also, remove the references as you will be citing them later in the article and references are highly discouraged in the lead.

In my previous GA's and FA's, I was informed to keep the citations there when using quotes in the lead. It's why it is the only time in the lead citations appear. Quotes are statements about the individual and therefore more prone to controversy: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." -WP:LEADCITE. This would be in line with past convention and the policy. Please let me know if you still want it removed as being against GA criteria. Mkdw^talk 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I am still relatively new to reviewing so thank you for the information. You are correct and the references in the lead are fine as they currently stand. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for reviewing. Marking this as  Done. Mkdw^talk 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove the references in the last sentence of the first paragraph for the same reasons listed above.

Please see above. Mkdw^talk 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Change “at age twelve” to “at the age of twelve”
• For “a relatively late start for a ballet student” change to “, which is a relatively late start for a ballet student” and just say “training in Russian ballet at the age of twelve” to make the sentence more concise. No reason to tack it on at the end. Keep Russian ballet linked.
• Be careful in the following sentence (She initially did not have aspirations of becoming a professional ballet dancer, but her talents were quickly identified by her teachers and within a year she was offered full scholarships to study abroad at some of the most prestigious ballet schools in the world.). It sounds from the point of view of a fan or admirer while the article should be as objective as possible. This is very noticeable around the part of her “talents”. Change to be more objective.
• For the last sentence of the second paragraph, change to “She rose to further prominence by winning a scholarship at the 2003 Prix de Lausanne as well as the Grand Prix at the 2003 Youth America Grand Prix.” Your version now is too wordy for no real reason. Keep the links for the competitions.
• Remove rapidly as it is unnecessary and makes the article appear like it is praising her rather than being objective.

I could use some help on this one. I understand your concerns about being objective. The article does need to mention and address that her rise in ABT comparative to the typical career of dancers was notably faster. This has been a coverage point on her career in many publications and therefore noteworthy. If you have suggestions about how to capture that information and preserve objectivity, it would be greatly appreciated. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After reading the article as a whole, I understand your decision behind the word choices for "rapidly" and "quickly" so it should be fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Marking as  Done. Mkdw^talk 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove quickly in the second sentence for the same reasons stated above.

See above. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Despite all the corrections I am pointing out now, the lead does have a lot of great work!

Thank you. The suggestions are an improvement and greatly appreciated. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Early life

• Image does not belong in this section. The image shows a 2015 performance and does not correspond to the section about the subject’s early life.
• Image needs an alt.
• Restructure the following sentence (Seo is the middle child in her family and credits her strong relationship with her mother because she did not have a sister.). I do not understand the last part of the sentence. How does not having a sister strengthen Seo’s relationship with her mother. Clarify this point. The sentence also reads awkwardly with the point about the sister being tacked on at the end and not fully integrated into the sentence.

I'm not sure if I made it better, but it definitely should have been two different sentences. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the first sentence of the second paragraph, specify the level of school in the phrase “In school” Are you referring to elementary school? Middle school? High school?
• Specify the competition. I am assuming it has something to do with dance?
• Change “had received no formal ballet training” to “had not received any formal ballet training.”
• Remove nonetheless as it again sounds like it is from a fan (making some sort of inspirational story of her life).
• For the phrase “attend the school”, say “Sunhwa” to be specific
• Restructure the last sentence as it reads very awkwardly. See if you can communicate the same ideas (which are important and necessary to the article) in a more concise and clear manner. And it would make more sense if this sentence came before the prior one as it would put it more in a chronological order.

Training and professional career

• In the first sentence, change “at age twelve” to “at the age of twelve”
• Clarify the meaning of “after trying competitive swimming”. Did Seo want to be competitive swimmer at one point? Expand and clarify this point.

I've opted to remove it as it does not seem relevant to the section about her dance training. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• For the second sentence, who is the person saying that she has “the perfect body for ballet”. Clarify this.
• Why was she awarded the full three-year scholarship? Did she win a competition? Clarify this point.
• For the sentence introducing Jacqueline Akhmedova, say “was also one of her” to make the paragraph flow more cohesively.
• Restructure the following sentence (“Seo credits her ability to adapt to her mentors at the time who also helped her overcome a serious back injury.”) as it reads awkwardly. The part about her back injury needs to be better integrated into the sentence as it is important but is just tacked on the end in the current phrasing of the sentence.
• I would strongly recommend using some sort of topic sentence with the third paragraph as it just appears to jump around from ideas with a real direction or focus.

Personally, I thought it had a natural transition between her being accepted in the ABT company and then how difficult she found the transition. I could be wrong. Perhaps the paragraph should start with her joining ABT as an apprentice? The next sentence then talking about how she found it to be a difficult transition. Completely open to suggestions. Mkdw^talk 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

After rereading the third paragraph with your comment in mind, I can now see the transition so it is fine as it stands currently.

I changed it. Let me know if this is any cleaner. Mkdw^talk 21:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks great! Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Marking as  Done. Mkdw^talk 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Change age twenty-six to “at the age of twenty-six”
• Who is noting Seo for her lyrical style and feminine strength? Clarify who is speaking there.
• The following sentence has very important information but needs major revision for flow and structure (Seo shortly had the opportunity at several full-lengths when in her second year as principal, three of ABT's senior principal ballerinas announced their retirement suddenly putting Seo at the front of the line for many of the lead roles.) You could separate this into smaller, more concise sentences.
• Spell out 32 and link fouette
• Remove in for the phrase “in personality roles”. "Personality roles" makes more sense.
• For the first sentence of sixth paragraph, I would say “Seo models for Bloch and wears their pointe shoes” as I feel her being a model for the company is more important and should be put first.
• The sentences in this paragraph seem unnecessary and border on advertising. Why are these two sentences on the shoes and perfume bottles necessary?

Please see below.

• With consideration to the title of the Wall Street Journal source, why do you not discuss the "tour" and instead put focus on somewhat odd product placement about Bloch pointe shoes?

I think it's important to note that pointe shoes are a dancer's instrument and tool. The mention in the article is relevant to the individual and informative about technical work and preference of the dancer. I'm not a musician, but I recognize that for people knowledgeable about music, that knowing the type and of an instrument is relevant in an article about a musician. Whether they played on a Stradivarius, or a rock musician to play on a Gibson. For example, in the featured article Jimmy Hendrix there is an entire section about the equipment he used but it's not simply a plug for Fender Stratocaster. This was my line of thinking in regards to the pointe shoes because ballet dancers are athletes and it was noteworthy enough to be written about in publication.

As for the title of the publication, it's about pointe shoes. While "tour" appears in the title, it only appears once in the entire article: "Dancers in the company are issued theater cases to store their personal items. The company handles the cases during tours." The word "shoes" appears about 12 times excluding the article title. Mkdw^talk 20:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My primary concern is not with the shoes for the reasons you mention above. My primary concern is with the reference with Hee Seo's preference for perfume as I do not see the relevance. It just reads more as product placement than anything else as it does not add anything to a reader's knowledge of the subject. (Correct me if I am wrong as I might be missing something very obvious). Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I have removed the note about the perfume. I mentioned it only because the paragraph also mentioned, aside from her pointe shoes, what else she carried with her. Indeed, it is less relevant. Mkdw^talk 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I think removing the perfume would keep the focus on the shoes, which are more important and relevant to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Marking as  Done. Mkdw^talk 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Roles and repertoire at ABT

• Image needs an alt
• Each individual performance needs a citation. You only include a citation to “Romeo and Juliet”
• Replace the list with prose and integrate it with the rest of the “Training and professional career” section and then divide that section into subsections. “Training and professional career” needs more focus and that would help. It would also allow you to better use both images (the one from “Early life” and the one from this section). A list should not used for this page. Every GA-class article that I see from Wikiproject Dance/Ballet does not use a list and uses prose instead.

I would like to discuss about keeping this as a list. Both for practical reasons and because it's acceptable layout under MOS:WORKS. It is most commonly seen for individuals who work in television and film in filmography sections, but appears in other articles that are part of the WikiProject Dance/Ballet, such as the featured article Edward Elgar#Selected works. Considering the amount of published material about each of her roles, I believe a list version remains the most easily readable means of conveying this information. Mkdw^talk 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was always uncertain about whether lists were allowed or not. I agree with your argument about the lists as it does put all the performances in a very readable format (especially for someone like me who is very unfamiliar with ballet) so I will allow the list to stay. My only major concern is now with the images. Use upright for both images.

@Aoba47: I've put in upright=scaling factor but the images are very small. I believe it's because the photographer who uploaded them did so with a very high resolution image. Considering the thumb size, and the fact that you cannot see her face well, I'd like to recommend upright=1.2 and upright=1.3. According to MOS:IMGSIZE this may be done when a larger image is appropriate. Taking into consideration the resolution and the fact that the article can support a larger thumb there (especially the second one with all the white space), I'd like to try it. Have a look at the last two revisions and compared and let me know what you think. Mkdw^talk 23:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Should the information at bottom of the list be placed either in a footnote/end note or something more organized to keep the list from looking too messy/cluttered? Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I can look into creating two lists. One with named roles and one without. Mkdw^talk 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Just made the change and it seems much more clean to me. Mkdw^talk 23:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks really great now! Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove “Awards and honors” as it is unnecessary and repetitive.

Marking as  Done. Mkdw^talk 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• While this is not required to be passed as a GA, I would recommend archiving all your links to avoid dead/broken links in the future.

I will work on this but it will take some time. Mkdw^talk 21:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No rush on this part, again this is not a requirement. It is only a suggestion. Hopefully, my comments are helpful and I did not come across as too negative as you have done a lot of excellent work here! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links

• Instead of “Dancer Bio”, put Hee Seo’s name

Final comments

@Mkdw: While I can tell and appreciate that a lot of time and research has gone in this article, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to get it to the level of a good article. The most glaring issue is the list in the “Roles and repertoire at ABT” which needs to be converted into prose and cited. Also, there are numerous issues of awkward/unclear sentence construction and a biased tone that needs correction. Once you go through the comments that I left above, I will point you to any more areas for improvement that I find. Good luck with the revisions and let me know if you have any questions or comments! Aoba47 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: I will be commenting on your responses. Thank you for your quick responses and I hope you find my comments to be helpful. You have done a great job so I hope I did not sound too negative or harsh. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: It looks great now! I will be the article one last look and then I will pass it. Great work and very interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Excellent work! Passing this now. ✓ Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

GA?

Whoa! Seriously? This is a C-class article, maybe B-class. It is not broad in its coverage. It doesn't even identify her parents. The career section is perfunctory; it is not a serious chronological exploration of her career, relying instead on embedded undated lists of roles. There is no Reputation section. I cannot understand how this article was promoted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on GA and FA articles. I understand well that invariably editors will have different opinions about articles. Reputation sections are indeed good to have. I would love to have a section for Hee Seo and eventually she may have it. It should be noted that ballet and female dancers generally receive less coverage than perhaps other important figures and celebrities. That being said, reputation sections are not very common in biographical articles. In fact I would say they're very few and far between in GAs and even in FAs. Identifying parents and a thorough exploration of her work would, in my opinion, fall under "comprehensive coverage of major facts, details and context". The article in itself does cover the "broad", meaning wide and "'the "broad' standard merely requires coverage of the main points", outlining her career and training. The list of roles is comparable to a filmography list section. The article seems within the "satisfactory" and I fully agree it's not of a professional "standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted" as described at Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article. I'm sorry you were "appalled" that this was promoted. I've worked hard on this article and you're clearly an experienced writer, so I would like to find a way to work with you to get this up to standard. Please let me know if you believe this can be accomplished. Mkdw^talk 19:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. Strongly. This article is not a bad little article, and I commend you on your hard work, but it is my opinion that the reviewer has made a serious error in promoting it to GA-class. Instead of embedded lists of her roles, the article should chronologically explore her life and career, mentioning her important roles along the way and giving the dates when she first performed each such role. It should have more about what the reviewers said about her technique, style, stage presence, etc. in major roles, and perhaps some discussion of her importance to American ballet. The statement in the Lead about her aspirations is vague and unhelpful -- obviously, at some point, she decided to become a ballet dancer, and the statement doesn't belong in the Lead. Also, there should not be any information in the WP:LEAD that is not discussed at more length in the body of the article; there is quite a bit of "reputation" material in the Lead section that should be moved to, and expanded upon in, the body. The statement that "[Swan Lake] is notoriously difficult for its thirty-two fouettés and the lead ballerina having to dance the two contrasting personality roles of Odette, the White Swan, and Odile, the Black Swan" has nothing to do with Seo. The statement is equally applicable to every ballerina who has ever danced the role. Instead, a useful statement would be how a prominent reviewer thought she handled the difficult role. The statement that she "prefers the mental and physical challenge of full-length ballets over repertory works", is useless fluff, as is the material about her ballet shoes. Every ballet dancer could say the same thing about shoes. It should be removed or moved to a footnote. Why is it of enyclopedic interest that her performances are sponsored by Pamela and David B. Ford? Isn't that just ABT's way of paying the bills? If you think that the coverage of her life and career in this article is broad, then no, I cannot work with you, because we fundamentally disagree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your commentary. As I have stated above, I too did nnot agree with the embedded list and suggested turning into prose and putting into the section related to her career. This is the first time that I have worked on an article related to a real person and I am not very familiar with ballet. I tried my best to leave as fair commentary as possible and I was uncertain if the lists were allowed or not for an article such as this. Actually, I was initially putt off by the article due to the lists. If you think it appropriate, then I could reassess this article or ask for your help as a second opinion. I tried to diversify my reviews as I usually just do fictional characters and video games, which are all very different than this one so I apologize for not properly following through with this article (both to nominator and to Ssilvers. I am open to any suggestions to make this right. Aoba47 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: I can remove the article's status for now and put it up for a second opinion if you think that is best. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a Second Opinion

Since my previous review was questioned (as seen above), I would feel more comfortable having someone more experienced look through this page and review. I apologize to nominator for any inconvenience. The primary problems raised were about the embedded list, quality of the career section, and the absence of a Reputation section. I am honestly disappointed that someone was "appalled" by my review (which I find somewhat rude as the person has not even contacted me about it), but the review would be better conducted by someone more familiar with this type of article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Since there has been a lot of conflict about this, I am going to stand by my decision for the time being. If you disagree with the review, then feel free to put this up for reassessment. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Before anything, I hope this experience does not discourage you from writing and reviewing other articles. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This also includes custodial work, discussions, and reviewing. The only way to gain experience is by doing. This project is about writing first and foremost. I appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time and contribute in a meaningful way -- regardless of the outcome of this disagreement with the other editor.

As for the process, the GA nomination was submitted on 4 December 2015‎. It stood there idle until a few days ago when you reviewed it as part of the GA Cup. The article itself was created in 2009 before being improved by myself as part of Asian Collaboration Month. There was ample time for others to improve the article and to review it or weight in. The review was completed and regardless of whether someone disagreed with the review a day, a month, or years later, it was complete. As you've stated, Wikipedia has a review process called WP:GAR whereby the article can be put through a community review in contentious cases. If it is indeed "appalling" that this ever made it to GA, then the community consensus to have it delisted will happen. I'd certainly respect that outcome if it were to occur. Mkdw^talk 02:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Aoba47, I am not telling you what to do, and I have no desire to initiate a GAR. I don't mean to be rude to you, but this is nothing like a GA article, in my opinion. I did not contact you on your Talk page about it because, in my 10 years of experience at Wikipedia, giving people unsolicited advice on their Talk page rarely turns out well. If you look at the changes I made today to Seo's article, I had to correct some blatant grammatical errors, serious failures in referencing and various problems per WP:LEAD. Some of those have been corrected, but as you note, I still believe that the article needs considerable expansion to approach GA-class. That does not mean that anyone should be discouraged from writing and improving articles, it only means that GA is a standard that requires a more complete article. For a performer's article, it should give a much more complete discussion of the person's life and career, not just a list of roles played. This article also fails to give much sense of this person's family, personality and life offstage, instead containing generic trivia, like how many pairs of shoes she needs. Again, I fundamentally disagree that this article comes close to that level of "broad" coverage, and with the embedded lists of roles, rather than a narrative treatment of the career, I cannot agree that the writing passes muster. As I said, I think it is a very good C-class article, and with a little expansion and some headings, it would be B-class. It is clear that Mkdw has done a lot of research, but he/she just hasn't written down the facts about Seo's career, in narrative form, that are probably contained in the sources that he/she has already found. All the best to both of you, but no need to ping me. I'm not watchlisting this article. But Aoba47, if you are a regular GA reviewer, I think you should examine some GAs like these to see what can and should be accomplished in a GA-class article. I point you to my own, simply because I am familiar with them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)