Talk:Megan Fox/GA1

GA Review

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

Quick fail criteria

The article is not liable for failure under the quick fail criteria.

Full review

GA review (see here for criteria)

A decent article, but there are multiple problems with references and some issues with prose and coverage.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Reasonably well-written, although for me there is over-emphasis on long quotes.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Plenty of references, but equally as many issues, see the full list under References.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Consider combining 'Early life' and 'Career'; currently early life seems too small for me, this could be because it omits the time between age 10 and 16. Any further information on this substantial time period for the actress is quite necessary, unless nothing actually happened in 6 years!
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold while improvements are made on recommendations.

Comment: As an outsider to this article I feel a concern regarding the Personal Life section. I believe that a BLP of a person is always notable for their career. Hence theor biography is incorporated in Wikipedia. Any personal life information is a part of thier biography. So I ask wouldn't it be better if we can merge the personal life as a part of the main biography? I've been involved with such kind of changes in Janet Jackson and Madonna. Also another reason for merging the Personal life is that it geenrally becomes the target and hotbed for adding gossips and fancruft. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Fine, I shall recommend, but not enforce that this happen for the article. I hope someone is willing to make the change. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I don't think this page is particularly "Stable". There have been ongoing disputes between legitimate edits on Megan's personal conduct and those that will declare edit wars against anything not favorable, regardless of how it is backed by VERIFICATION, NPOV, and such. Whippletheduck (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No there has been a dispute over the inclusion of comments I consider not to be notable. As someone who is entirely neutral to Megan Fox and her personal conduct, I can tell you that deleting those comments was the right thing. Do we want to include comments made by Megan which aren't particularly notable amongst her personal life, aren't cited by major sources and are undergoing a dispute? No, of course not. Can we leave it at that? There are other issues I would like to discuss in the GA review. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

There are actually so many issues with references that I find a new section appropriate:

Cite web template issues: Every reference needs to be consistent with the cite web template. 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 32 and 36 are the most basic reference type. Number 27 and 33 need fixing. 1-5 do not contain the work/publisher or year parameters. 8 does not contain accessdate parameter. 9 has just the title. Same for 12. 26 and 28 are have no year, publisher, accessdate parameters. I could go on and on with missing parameters and titles etc.

Duplicate content references: Number 80 and 81 are duplicate content, you need to decide which is the more reliable. Same for 97 and 98, except that 98 is apparently published by IntoGossip, which I don't consider a reliable reference whatsoever (it's a gossip blog). 88 and 89 are duplicate content, with 89 coming from the gossip blog again.

Spacing issues: ~~There are some spacing issues, with references appearing after a space. Two cases of this in Early Life alone.~~

Fixed Ashley92995 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same references for same point: ~~There are two cases where the same references are present twice for one statement. In 'Early life' and 'Comparison to Angelina Jolie'.~~

Needless to say, this is my biggest concern for the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 days remaining before I close the GAR. At the moment I would fail the article due to references. Keep that in mind. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More issues: ~~for one thing, the Internet Movie Database's filmography for Megan Fox is listed as four different references.~~ MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Ashley92995 (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. However, some more issues:

~~References for Early life have been unformatted.~~
The lead doesn't adequately sum up Megan Fox, it omits her personal life entirely. I always aim for a paragraph per important header.

Fixed Ashley92995 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ashley92995 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (I feel confident that I fixed the 2 conflict - the one on the bottom of the two) Ashley92995 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

You probably did fix it, but now my concern is the lead. WP:Lead says that an article of size 32kb (Megan Fox is 50kb) should have two or three paragraphs. So therefore if you ramp that up to 50kb and what I suppose is around 30,000 characters, it is suggested three or four paragraphs. So the article doesn't meet even the most conservative estimates. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I just expanded Fox's info-bio article to 3 and a half paragraphs; I think that's sutiable enough compared to the length of the rest of the article. Ashley92995 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it, but I don't consider the lead "fixed". Have a look at Angelina Jolie's article. It has three paragraphs, as I asked, however look at the size difference. The lead summarises her work in one paragraph, her relationships and such in another, and her recognition. If you need a hand I guess I could help, but I'm sure that won't be needed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I just re-did Fox's lead, and I re-focused some of the paragraphs towards her relationships with b.a.g and her rankings, a similar format to Jolies.

- Okay, I've made a few minor edits myself to things. I think everything is just about in order now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think that the current version of the page would pass as a good article?. Ashley92995 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm just going through and clearing up things that may have appeared due to spurious edits and such. Any help would be appreciated. It seems arbitrary to pass it for GAN when there are still bits to do, there's no rush for GA. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update 19 August

I've been a bit lax (kind) with the deadlines for this article with regards to GA. The talk page template indicates seven days in which to make changes and that milestone passed by some time ago. I've taken a look at the status of the article at previous GAN (in May 1 2008), and the difference between it currently and then is impressive. Nonetheless the article still doesn't quite meet my own standards for what it means to be a GA.

Things still left to do:

Make all references consistent with the cite web template
Remove excessive quotes
Make sure the prose is in order

I didn't think when I started reviewing this article I would get so involved with it. Not much further to go. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your contribution's and for extending the page's assessment deadline. Ashley92995 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

I'm afraid, though major improvements have been made and are continually being made, the article is still not up to the standards of GA. Problems persist with some of the prose (akward wording etc.) and with references (unreliable sources and issues with templates).

I would be more than willing to review the article in a couple of weeks/months, but for now, having given more than ample time, I do consider the article just short of GA standards. Thank you to all who have worked on the article during this time, your efforts will no doubt be repaid if the article is submitted again to GAN. Feel free to contact me at that time.

Final assessment: Fail , MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]