Talk:Naya Rivera/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

{{inprogress}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Overall while this is a solid start, there's some systemic issues, particularly in regards to sourcing, that need to be addressed. Thoughts on the article as follows:

• General and prose:
  • This sentence is really wordy: She began her career as a child actress and model, appearing in national television commercials before landing the role of Hillary Winston on the short-lived CBS sitcom The Royal Family (1991–1992) at the age of four and earning a nomination for a Young Artist Award at five.
  • The tense throughout is a little odd, likely because her death is somewhat recent. But it reads a bit strange to say she had certain ancestry but then use present tense for her parents are. Even if you want to argue since her parents are still living it makes sense to use present tense, it's disruptive to shift repeatedly.
  • I think in general there's sometimes excessive detail to the point of distraction, like mentioning she didn't like getting her hair wet when boating (and is a random anecdote about being scared really that important?)
  • Likewise, streamlining the prose throughout would help. If the date she said something is not important, don't mention it (e.g. In 2019, Rivera described her high school experience as "terrible"
  • Quotes are generally overused. Where it's easy to summarize without direct quotes, it should generally be done, instead of trying to rely on quotes just for flavor. Especially don't throw out random quotes from other people that have very little authority to them, e.g. with a colleague from her final role saying that after the incident, for Rivera, season finales "were devastating [and] could represent the end of her life as she knew it".
• References:
  • There's a general problem with using primary sources inappropriately (I note also there are clear copyright violations like Youtube videos being used as citations.) These should be removed or replaced with better secondary sources.
  • In terms of other sourcing, there's some low-quality or questionable sources that I think either need to be removed or justified, such as:
    • Hollywood the Write Way, The Inquisitr, International Business Times, In Touch Weekly, Nice Girls TV, MJVibe, SCVTV, New York Post, Starry Constellation Magazine, Cinemablend, Metro, Aisle Seat, Geeks Out, Screen Relish, Pop Optic, Diabolique Magazine, Female First, We Got This Covered, Batman-News, Famous Fix, Look to the Stars, JYSK, Hypable, Autostraddle, we are mitú, Latinx spaces, op-charts.com, Popculture, etc.
  • The reference formatting needs a lot of love. You've got some pages only listed by publisher, others only by work or website, some that have identical website/publisher (and thus shouldn't just be repeated), some websites that are referred to be URLs instead of titles, some links that don't point to the right place (Advocate pointing to Advocate instead of The Advocate (LGBT magazine), etc.)
  • I'm concerned about some of the referencing touching into synthesis, for example saying "the media considered her not getting an Emmy a snub" while using a bunch of sources that don't directly support that assertion and/or are not strong sources. The prose also feels like (especially using the quotes) that it's veering into non-neutral POV.
• Media:
  • Images look appropriately licensed and suitably free to use.

Given that addressing the above concerns would mean substantial rewrites, I am failing the nomination presently. When you feel it meets GA criteria it can be resubmitted. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thanks for the review. While I feel a lot of the issues are not as serious as you claim, I haven't been heavily active recently and it may have taken some time. I will say I am not an expert on the subject, which is why I preferred to use quotations when trying to even out coverage, but some pointers at excessive use would have quickly resolved this with removal or rephrasing. I will probably work on the reference formatting first, something I started when cleaning the article up for ITN but never returned to, though most of those sources you say must be defended are perfectly adequate - some authoritative, even. And citing YouTube uploads as a primary source is no copyright violation by any stretch of the imagination (maybe, at a stretch, the one that isn't from an official account, but it's so brief that just linking to it hardly qualifies); one of her shows was literally a YouTube original series. I also question why you would think using the correct tense is a fail-able issue: we must refer to Rivera in the past tense but her living relatives in the present, whether you think it sounds good or not. We're not in the business of killing or resurrecting people because you think one sentence saying "had" and the next saying "are" is "disruptive". You're generally a good reviewer from what I've seen, but some of these comments make little sense. Kingsif (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's a little, well, unkind (if not wrong) to pick up the oldest unreviewed nom by several months and immediately fail it based on half a review of things that aren't strictly criteria. I think I'll ask @BlueMoonset: to get this reinstated in the queue, actually. Kingsif (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, as this has been duly reviewed by an experienced reviewer, it is not in my power to reinstate the nomination; unfortunately, you will have to renominate it as "new". It does seem a shame that after waiting over 240 days to get a review, that a query as to whether you'd be able to deal with all these issues in the next seven (or more) days was not made, given the risk that a nomination after updates might need to wait another eight months to find a reviewer. Perhaps David Fuchs might be willing to reopen the nomination if you think you can accomplish all that was raised in the next week or two? I've just taken a quick look at the article and I think the shifts in tense could be minimized and other prose issues dealt with. I don't understand the YouTube issue, though a YouTube original series would have its episodes as sources for plot and such much like a published novel is its own source for those things; posted media interviews by the media organization (if considered a reliable one rather than a hype machine) are possible, but should naturally be used with care. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Kings's response above makes me believe running the review would be unproductive. If they don't want to make substantial changes, they are free to renominate and try and get a less thorough reviewer. This basic failure to understand copyright and our external links rules does not inspire me with confidence. We have different ideas of what constitutes a good article and I don't see the point in continuing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: You insult me, and assume the worst. I don't want a less thorough reviewer, I want one that doesn't say "it needs substantial prose edits, like removing this date from the first section" when, 1. that's not even good specific advice, given the context, and 2. such generic advice is not useful and almost sounds like you just wanted a reason to fail it. I didn't misunderstand any of the EL rules, you clearly didn't check the YouTube publisher that example I mistook the publisher, which was misrepresented; but your review erroneously claimed that all uses of YouTube were copyvio, which is patently untrue and I found much too sweeping a comment. I don't know if you put no effort in, but I don't think this is an adequate review, period. I'm more than willing to make substantial changes to all content, as shown from my past noms, if you are willing to give useful feedback. Honestly - a similar article I nominated, Chadwick Boseman, just passed, and I welcome you to check over that if you're concerned about my dedication to improve WP coverage, I'm not about just getting a green stamp. Kingsif (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I thought I'd included this but I hadn't; since I couldn't improve the article based on the entirely generic and lacking comments in this review if I tried, I don't think it's adequate, that's why I asked. Even when failing a review, unless it is an article inappropriate for WP altogether, I expect some substantial feedback to be provided. That hasn't happened here. Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)