Talk:Anne Hathaway/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This is in pretty good shape, but it needs some work to bring it in line with the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am outliniing a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Never Mystic (talk · contribs), Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs), Tchockythegreat (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delisted mostly due to WP:WIAGA 1b and 3a.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Never Mystic (talk · contribs), Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs), Tchockythegreat (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the alt text checker this article needs WP:ALT text.
DoneAccording to the link checker this article has two deadlinks. DoneThe subject is more than adequately identified. I see no need for File:The Princess Diaries.jpg and File:Anne Hathaway in Brokeback Mountain.jpg to be included in the article considering WP:NFCC. Done- P.S. those images probably are acceptable in the articles about the movies.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The remaining images should have{{personality rights}}tags on them at commons. Done- Many terms need links such as Carnegie Hall, sexual orientation, (Jane Eyre, Gigi, Once Upon a Mattress I think adaptations of these should link to the article but am open to thoughts),
Paper Mill Playhouse, Brooklyn Heights, Seton Hall Prep, West Orange, Get Happy: The Life of Judy Garland I am a little confused on the reference to Emily Blunt. Clarified. Done- Why so long a section on a former relationship and not one on the current one? Mostly because the old boyfriend issue involved a fairly widespread scandal that led to break up and the new boyfriend thing is kept very under wraps. I'll try to find more content about him.
- The article has many one-line and stubby paragraphs that should either be expanded or merged.
- The article has
numerousone remaining paragraphs that are entirely uncited. Please add inline citations. At least one per paragraph assuming the article is properly formatted so that distinct paragraphs cover distinct topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment about the lead section : I find this sentence to be out of place for lead. "Her acting style has been compared to that of Judy Garland and Audrey Hepburn[1] and she cites Hepburn as her favorite actress[2] and Meryl Streep as her idol.[3]" The comparison to Garland and Hepburn is cited to an unknown author and an article that we can't read. We have no way of knowing the context in which the comment was made, whether the commentator was qualified to make such a comment, whether it is a widely held view or that of a single commentator ... there is nothing to support using it in the lead, and it is not drawn from the article, so it is not part of a summary. I would remove it, but perhaps someone more familiar with the article may have more information to provide. Audrey Hepburn is mentioned twice in the lead - and nowhere else in the article, and Streep is mentioned as an idol in the lead, but the context in the article is different. None of this serves as a summary. All the names in the lead look a bit like 'fame by association', and the lead should be fairly and squarely about Hathaway. Should this sentence be deleted? Rossrs (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It should be moved to the body of the article and removed from the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Many concerns have been address and many have not. It seems that many of those that are unresolved me be active decisions, but no explanation is present. I will check back to monitor progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note I really hate that this article had to be delisted. I've just not been well enough to devote my attention to fixing the problems. It's disheartening to know that several persons were notified about this and none came to help fix what were essentially small issues. I even posted requests at some talk pages and no response from them. Perhaps this can be worked back up in the near future, but between ongoing health problems and an illness, I just couldn't give it the time it needed. Sorry folks, but at least I made an effort. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)