Wikipedia:Peer review/Jada Pinkett Smith/archive1

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

Jada Pinkett Smith[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like a peer review for this article because I want to take it through the FAC process, but I want to tackle any issues that may come up now before I nominate it. Any suggestions for potential improvements are welcome.

Thank you very much for everyone's time. – Ms. Sarita Confer 06:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang
  • I think the language is generally pretty good, although there is a bit of quirks here and there.
  • "She continued on to portray Lyric in another romance film, Jason's Lyric (1994)."
This seems to imply that she acted as Lyric in a previous film.
  • "with Pinkett Smith commenting,", "charity focusing on youth", "With Pinkett Smith's aunt, Banfield Evans, being diagnosed with lupus"
Noun-plus-ing constructs are frowned upon by the stricter grammaticians (see User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing).
  • "... second-stage lineup at 2005's Ozzfest. Ozzfest fans were outraged ..."
Ozzfest repetition — how about replacing "Ozzfest fans" with "Fans of the festival"?
These have all been taken care of. The noun-plus-ing constructs may be a little iffy, but it's a start. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the changes are good. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am quite sure the last sentence of "Relationships and family" can be integrated with either larger paragraphs (short lone sentences are frowned upon). I also think the single sentence in "Charity work and politics" can be merged with other paragraphs.
I always did feel that those sentences were kind of tacky. I moved them into appropriate paragraphs. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • File:Jada Pinkett Smith Niobe.jpg — aside from its placement in violation of MOS (portraits face towards the text), is there any strong reason for this to be in the article other than "to show her image in this film"?
I moved the image to the right per MOS. There is no strong reason. The article was extremely bare with a lack of photos and seeing as how The Matrix series is what really gained her a lot of exposure, I figured the image was fitting. However, if you feel that it should really be removed, I have no problem with taking it out. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Any non-free image use can be justified by writing a strong and convincing rationale for why the photo should remain. If the photo is a notable high point of Pinkett Smith's career (that it is an identifying image of her), then write it in the NFCC template (the current "To be used on Jada Pinkett Smith article, highlighting a breakthrough role for the actor." is not very convincing).
I note your comment that removing this image leaves the article bare. There is File:Will Smith.jpg, which shows Pinkett Smith and her husband at an Academy Awards. It can be placed in the Relationships and family section. It is free, but some might comment that she is only a peripheral figure in the photo. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not going to check through all the links (unable to access all of them at this time), but what makes about.com reliable? The site has been proven to be not reliable at FACs (the claim of the authors as experts is not 100% true), so the onus is to prove the expertise/reliability of the authors of the about.com site you are referencing. Similarly, IMDb is going to be questioned on at FAC.
You are correct regarding the About.com reference, so I removed it and the sentence it was supporting (didn't feel it was all that important anyway). Regarding IMDb, the reason I like to use the website for citing awards and nominations is because there is a less likely chance that the page will be deleted in the future. I've seen IMDb sourced at several FAs (e.g., Cillian Murphy and Angelina Jolie), so I'm confident that it will be okay. – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Noting that IMDb is used in other FA articles is not a good defence to rely on. The use of IMDb is debated on the Village Pump and Reliable sources noticeboard. Take a look there and see if there is concensus for using the entire site or just only parts of it. The key point is context. Is IMDb reliable for its list of awards and nominations? If yes, it can be likely accepted for that role only. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Both sources were used for interviews with Pinkett Smith, which I believe to be okay. I mean...these sources can't just pluck out interviews from thin air and say that Pinkett Smith said all these things...can they? Or, am I totally wrong? – Ms. Sarita Confer
Generally, questions would be brought up on sites that provide interviews (although I have rarely seen opposes just for this). The concern with using sites of unknown reliability for interviews is if the site will "edit" the interview to cast the subject's comments in a different light (e.g. leading the subject in a series of questions, then cutting out some parts of the interview). There is no harm in trying to bring these interviews to FAC, but be prepared to defend them in case someone raises questions on them. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are also several dead links, notably the goasa.com and billboard.com links.
The goasa.com was dead, so I replaced it. Thoughts on the reference being used now (reference 53)? I wouldn't want that quote to be lost. Also, I used Checklinks and, even though it says that the Billboard.com links are dead, they work perfectly fine when I click on the links from the article. Glitch? – Ms. Sarita Confer 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the links look fine now; I agree the billboard link probably glitched the tool. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)