Jump to content

Talk:Chloë Sevigny/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer:  Skomorokh  15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, I will be reviewing this article for Good Article status. I have written a dozen or so GAs over the past three years so am familiar with the process. I will start by making specific suggestions for the improvement of the article, and later give a general review against the GA criteria. I generally like to allow reviews as much time as they need to get the article up to scratch, but if you prefer a stricter one-week limit that's fine too.  Skomorokh  15:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Overall, the lede is a good introduction to the topic.
  • Although it's a convention rather than a criterion, I prefer not to see inline citations used in the lede unless it's for direct quotes or controversial statements. The lead section should be a summary of the body of the article, so all its claims ought to already be referenced below. It is unclear what the two citations directly after "Chloë Stevens Sevigny" are for, for instance; it would be better to spell it out in the Early life section with an explicit claim (i.e. "She was born Name X but known by Name Y").
  • The point that she starred in critically acclaimed independent films is mentioned twice in the second paragraph. It would be good to consolidate or reword these.
  • Is it necessary to name and link the characters she is famous for in a summary?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because it is the lead, it is not necessary to mention all/information of the characters she plays because it is the introduction? I think it is somewhat important to provide information about Lana in Boys Don't Cry, because this is the role Sevigny is known for to date, and what most people recognize her from. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it seemed like a distracting level of detail for a summary, yes. If you think it's important to mention that's fine by me though.  Skomorokh  21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section ends somewhat abruptly, jumping from clothing lines to the pronunciation of her name. Perhaps expanding with a line or two on her personal life might be appropriate here.
Early life
  • Again, this section is well-done. There is something of a prose issue with trying to string too many clauses into the one sentence (I have this problem myself), but otherwise the composition is strong.
  • Saying that she "ventured into New York City" sounds as if she absentmindedly wandered in there one day, when what is probably intended is a more descriptive way of saying she moved there permanently.
Career
  • It would be interesting to know how she came to be involved in Kids.
  • It might be worth saying a little more about her early films than just their names, years of release and stars/director. As it stands, the Trees Lounge/Gummo/Palmetto/The Last Days of Disco sequence comes across a little like proseline. This point applies to most of the Career section, incidentally.
  • Is The Brown Bunny the film for which she is best known? It seems odd to have three paragraphs on this compared to the limited coverage of Boys Don't Cry and Kids for instance.

While Sevigny is definitely not best known for her role in this film, the final scene did achieve a significant level of notoriety and resulted in Sevigny being dropped from the William Morris agency. However, I have shortened the section, instead of having three-paragraphs dedicated to the film individually, there is now only one, equal to Kids and Boys Don't Cry. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Watch the use of the present tense, which can become dated. Terms like "currently", "actively" are best avoided where possible.
  • The treatment of of Sevigny's sexuality is somewhat opaque. This may be as a result of her handling of the issue, but if we could be more direct in addressing it that would be an improvement.
Filmography
  • So long as this is comprehensive, no major issues here. The notes could be standardised and expanded with references, but the current version is adequate.
References
  • This is the major weakness of the article. It is far from clear, from a cursory view, that the sources used here meet the encyclopaedia's standards for reliability, particularly considering that this is a biography of a living person. Unless all the sources can be shown to be reliable, or replaced with reliable alternatives, the article cannot reach GA standards.

I have been through these sources, and majority of them are reliable. Some, I had to look for the cited information but I did eventually come across it and fix the links. I did, however, remove two of the links which led to websites Wikipedia is against, the Internet Movie Database and Yahoo!. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
  • The article, like many, is clearly a work of many atomic sentences and clauses strung together to form paragraphs, rather than planned out in advance. As such, some of the constructions and run-on sentences come across as awkward. It could use a thorough copy-edit from an outside editor.

I'm un-sure on how to copy-edit or how to ask someone to do so.Ashton 29 (talk)

As far as the GA requirements – 1(a) and 1(b) – are concerned, it's fine, but if you want the article to improve further it might be worth asking at the Guild of Copy-Editors for help.  Skomorokh  21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be great to find a higher-quality free image for the infobox. Failing that, if critical commentary on her fashion work or individual appearances could be added to the text, the use of high-quality non-free images could be justified under a fair use rationale.
  • Overall, this is commendable work, well done. Hopefully the above suggestions will lead to improvements, but either way I will return in a few days to offer a standard review against the criteria. If you have any questions or points to make, please don't be shy. Regards,  Skomorokh  00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As most of the initial issues have been addressed, I'll proceed to the full review shortly. Thank you for your diligence in responding so quickly and thoroughly. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

q===Criteria review=== The GA review follows; all comments refer to this version of the article.  Skomorokh  22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose is bare in some places and convoluted in others, but the article is certainly reasonably well written. No significant spelling, grammar or Manual of Style concerns.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    As this is a biography of a living person the threshold for reliable sourcing is higher than most articles.
    Unsourced claims:
    • "very early 1980s"
    • "reportedly brought to tears during the film's Cannes screening"
    • "Gallo made unexpectedly rude public remarks about Sevigny" (while the quote itself is sourced, this characterisation does not seem to be)
    Although the quote is sourced in the link, I am considering moving this statement, as it is relatively unneccessary and un-related to have in Chloe's "Career" section.
    • "Sevigny stated in a 2006 interview with Selma Blair that she came from a "close-knit" family" (need a proper citation for this)
    Some quotations whose sourcing is in doubt:
    • Contactmusic.com ("It's a shame people write so many things when they haven't seen it. When you see the film, it makes more sense. It's an art film. It should be playing in museums. It's like an Andy Warhol movie.")
    • [1] ("The scene was one step above pornography, and not a very big one. William Morris now feels that her career is tainted and may never recover, especially after rumours began circulating about the even more graphic outtakes that didn't make it into the actual film.")

I have shortened this quote to "The scene was one stop above pornography", and found a more reliable source for that part of the quote as I cannot find any other reliable websites containing the full quote, other than Contact Music.

  1. Questionable sources used for contentious claims:
    I have re-worded this part, turns out the actress was not fired, but rather "replaced". I also added two other sources and a quote I found in one of these particular sources.
    This wasn't a citation for it being a cult film, but instead for the films domestic gross. Maybe I will put the citation next to the figure instead of after "cult film", then find a source for it being a cult film.
    Chloe did do an interview for Genre Magazine, so I see no problems with this aource remaining. I have removed the Queerty source and the statement about her being a "gay icon", which is disputed and irrelevant to the relationships section and kept the quote from The Natonal Ledger (and replaced the NL source with an article from the New York Times).
  1. Other sourcing issues:
    • The citations should use a consistent style; magazine citations should include the same information, as should website citations and so on. One way of doing this is using citation templates such as {{cite news}}/{{cite web}}/{{cite journal}} or {{citation}} (though these are by no means necessary)
  1. *Every citation should include the name(s) of the author(s), the publication, the publisher, and in the case of websites, an accessdate (i.e. Retrieved January 7, 2010)
    *Where possible when using reviews from aggregator sites like Rotten Tomatoes, the original source should be cited.
    • Blogs and fansites such as ChloeSevigny are almost never reliable.
    Completely removed all citations leading to this website.
    For the above sources, please show specifically how they meet the reliable sources guideline and the Biographies of living persons policy, or replace them with other reliable sources.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. 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):
    File:Chloesevignyboysdontcry.png has no fair use rationale for its use in this article. See WP:FURG and biographies of actors that are featured articles for an idea of how to write one.
    Update: The new fair use rationale is an improvement, but I'm not sure it satisfies the non-free content criteria. How does this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? How would its omission "be detrimental to that understanding"? The case for this needs to be made stronger in the rationale. See File:RedEye05.jpg for an example of a strong effort at this. Current rationale is acceptable, good work.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold pending resolution of sourcing and image concerns. Please respond below.  Skomorokh  22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing issues are outstanding, and need to be resolved if this article is to pass.  Skomorokh  15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am regretfully failing this article for GA status right now as I am concerned that in several instances the sourcing used is not of a sufficiently reliable standard for the article to meet criterion 1 (b). Other than this issue, the article is very close to being a Good Article, and I thank all the editors for their hard work on it. With a little more effort, this could be improved to GA status, so do feel free to re-nominate swiftly once that has been done. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chloë_Sevigny/GA1&oldid=1136610608"