Talk:Heidi Montag/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: one dead link found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Around this time, she released a second EP to promote her forthcoming album, which was titled Here She Is.... The next sentence says: Montag's debut album, Superficial, was digitally released on January 12, 2010. Clarification needed.  Not done

   No change has been made. So what was the name of the album? "Here She Is...." or "Superficial"?  Done. The album is Superficial, the EP is Here She Is....

   In November 2008, Montag and The Hills cast member Spencer Pratt eloped in Mexico. Missed this earlier. "Eloped" - implies marrying without parental permission. Also people don't "eloped in" . They eloped to Mexico. Not done

   "eloped" is the wrong word here. I know that one of the low quality sources used here uses it but that doesn't make it the right word.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   ref #15[3] Amazon is not a reliable source as has been extensively discussed at WP:RSN. Likewise ref #17. Also refs #51-54 iTunes is also not RS; ref#36[4] is a blog not an RS; Other sources such as People and US Weekly are hardly high class reliable sources, rather they are tabloid press, try looking for some better quality sources. Removed Amazon and iTunes sources and blog, and changed some US Weekly and People sources that were able to be replaced.

   But there are still plenty in there and they are still very low quality sources with no indication of reliability in this context.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not much third party commentary, mostly fan cruft about a minor celebrity.  Not done. Please elaborate; it is unclear as to what fan cruft you are referring to.

   Well pretty much the whole content. This is a person of little or no notability about whom little information can be found that has not been carefully stage managed by press and PR agents. This means the article cannot broadly cover the subject as there is little in the way of reliable sourcing.

   On March 3, 2008, Montag's stepbrother Eric O'Hara was killed in an accidental fall from an icy roof. O'Hara was a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and served in the 82nd Airborne Division. how is this relevant?  Done, although I did not remove the first sentence. This is part of her personal life.

   The lead mentions that she is a fashion designer, but there is little about this in the article - how did the line do - that was three years ago.  Done. I agree. The lead should be a summary of the topic and establish notability, and this should not be there. I am currently expanding the line section. I have expanded the line section.

   What happened to the "Famous Food" series, did she win?  Done. And no she didn't win.

   What is she doing now?  Done. She is writing a memoir.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   as per above no real independent commentary just rehashed publicity guff.  Not done. Please explain and give examples of what is not in a neutral point of view.

   An example: "Her appearance on the show, as well as Pratt's, was widely criticized after the couple claimed they were subject to torture." This is cited to just one source, hardly "widely criticized". In fact there is some useful commentary in this source[5] about the subject's stupidity and greed. I expect there is more elsewhere, such as here. In fact it appears that Montag is considered to be a laughable "famewhore" by much of the tabloid press. I've added another source to support the claim and also removed "widely".

   Please don' keep adding done to reviews - that is for the reviewer to judge.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

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):

   Images licensed and captioned OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well there is little encyclopaedic content here. On hold for seven days to sdee if some serious improvements can be made. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

   There is still no really encyclopaedic content here, just material recycled from press releases recycled by the the tabloid press. No sources have been found that really discuss the subject of the article. This clearly does not meet criterion 3#a and the sourcing of what material is here leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps if this individual actually does something of note there may be enough material in the future. Not listed as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)