Wikipedia:Peer review/Hilary Duff/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hilary Duff[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because…it recently passed it GA nomination and i intend to push for FA status. But before that i want it to go through a thorough peer review which would be helpful in later stages during FA nominations. Before GA nomination, it had 62 references and currently it has 91 sources, most of which were added during its GA nomination suggestions. I guess the article is broad in its coverage, well sourced and referenced, and well written. But still i'd like it to go through a peer review so that anything i might have missed is noted and improved at this stage.


Thanks,

Gprince007 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Review by LaraLove[edit]

Well-written, though I'm not sure it will pass "brilliant prose". It's comprehensive, balanced, well-illustrated, focused. I did some minor copy-editing. Below are the only things that popped out at me:

  1. Television > Lizzie Mcguire: The Lizzie Mcguire Movie raked in $42.6 million at the US box office[12] and received mixed reviews with certain critics calling it, "an unabashed promotion of Duff’s image, just as Crossroads was for Spears",[13] while other reviews were generally positive and encouraging.[14][15][16] DoneGprince007 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Film career > 2003-2004: Afterwards, Duff reprised her role as Lizzie McGuire for The Lizzie McGuire Movie, which exceeded box office expectations earning $55,534,455 worldwide.[20]
    • It's really not necessary to split this up. #1 should be cut and merged with #2. What's left in the Lizzie Mcguire section will be sufficient. DoneGprince007 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "raked in" is editorial. Change to more encyclopedic wording. DoneGprince007 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The two amounts differ. $42.6 or $55.5? Clarify, please. DoneGprince007 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Music career > 2002-2004: The video for "Our Lips Are Sealed" was popular on MTV's Total Request Live, but the song failed to chart on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100.
    • Did it chart in the U.S. at all? If not, just say that. This goes for any such wording in the article. Hot 100 is not the only U.S. chart, so it can be confusing.
  4. She described the album as more personal and having a rock feel than Metamorphosis.
    • This doesn't read quite right. DoneGprince007 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Personal life: In August 2005, Duff said she received veneers because she chipped off one of her front teeth on a microphone during a concert.[77] She subsequently had her veneers redone to match the size of her original teeth.
    • Why is that relevant?

Good luck with the FA nom. Regards, LaraLove 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well i guess i've addressed the major issues raised in the peer review. The following are the issues which i couldnt address alongwith reasons:
  • Pt. 3...many cites and sources are available which indicate that the song charted only in Australia. That means it didnt chart in US. But as far as my knowledge goes, drawing ur own conclusion or inference amounts to "Original Reasearch" ,so i think the sentence shd be left as it is.If i find a cite which states it clearly that it didnt chart in US , then i'll reword it as suggested in the peer review.
  • Pt 5... the veneer incident is cited but i am not sure abt its notability. A search on the internet revealed that Contact music, people magazine and life and style magazine have covered the veneer treatment. Also hilary duff's comment that she kept chipping her teeth on the microphone makes somewhat notable point. Anyways i have expanded the veneer incident in the article alongwith Duff's comment and its cited. But i'm still doubtful about its notability. But still i guess it shd remain as long as its ok or it doesnt hinder FA candidature.

Thanx for the review....any other suggestions are welcome. Gprince007 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you're taking it for FA, I'd say that the citations need better formatting. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.—RJH (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)