Jump to content

Talk:Christina Milian/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

I will be reviewing this article. I plan on finishing the review, hopefully, within the next few days. – Ms. Sarita Confer 07:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  • The lead section seems a bit too cluttered. Per WP:LEAD and the length of the article, the lead section should be broken up into about three or four paragraphs, highlighting the main parts of the article. Maybe you could remove some of the information that is redundant (i.e., mentioned in other places in the article) and summarize it so that it is a little easier to read. Perhaps put more emphasis on the albums Milian has released and her most successful singles as well as her acting career rather than focusing on what was a "commercial success" and what was not.
  • There is a sentence that doesn't state what the reference says: "...featured Cool & Dre on the majority of the production." The reference states that only Dre of Cool & Dre participated on the album.
  • Filmography: Do we need her entire filmography displayed? I hardly believe that "Additional voices" (A Bug's Life), "Girl at dance" (The Wood), "Young Lady in Hallway" (The Steve Harvey Show), etc. are pertinent to her career. In addition, a "cameo" appearance is usually done by a well-known figure and her cameos in 1999 (The Wood and American Pie) aren't really cameos since she wasn't well known back then. Also, maybe we can break up the table into two different tables with "Film" and "Television" subheadings, with details on what episode she appeared in (season #, episode #, episode name) when she was on a television show. Just a few suggestions. Let me know what you think. – Ms. Sarita Confer 08:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather have one table for both, and it probably doesn't really matter which episodes she appeared in. Her minor apprearances aren't that important, but do they have to be removed? I would like to have most of her appearances up there, but I wouldn't really mind removing them. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see what you're saying. My only reason for suggesting episode details is so that people who are interested in her have an easy way to know what episode, specifically, Milian was in. I do believe that the small appearances should be removed. You have mentioned them in the article already, so I don't particularly see a reason for them to be in the filmography. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Looks good. So, filmography is done. Discography is fine.
  • "Music career": Do you think it might look better if you list the album name first and then the years after for the subheadings? For example, instead of subheading "2000–2002: Christina Milian", you could change it to "Christina Milian: 2000–2002". – Ms. Sarita Confer 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a matter of preference. The Gwen Stefani does have that format and the Angelina Jolie article (which is also an FA, albeit Jolie being an actor) has the format I suggested. So, I don't believe it matters. If you want to change it, go ahead. If not, just strike out my original comment and leave it. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, good explanation. However, could you move the couple of sentences regarding her book to another paragraph? Currently, it's directly in between the specifications of her acting career and kind of breaks up the flow of the section. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  • You most likely know this, but just in case you don't: when it comes to numbers, it is perfectly fine to either (a) spell the numbers out or (b) write the 0-9 digits in numerals with 10-99 being spelled out. Either way, it needs to be consistent. There are some places, particularly when music charts are mentioned, in which two-digit numbers are spelled out and written in numerals. I didn't want to change it myself because I don't know what style you prefer, but one style needs to be chosen. Other than that, I don't think I can see any other MOS issues. – Ms. Sarita Confer 10:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected. Yes, 0-9 should be spelled out and 10-99 in numerals. My apologies; exams have drained my brain. Still, whatever style you choose, it needs to be consistent throughout the article. Also, I went through each section and made minor changes to the prose and punctuation, etc. I figured it would be easier for me to just do it rather than list everything here. Go over the edits and let me know what you think. Once you do that and have updated the numbers situation, this criteria is a go. – Ms. Sarita Confer 11:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
  • I will work on finding these for you later tonight and list them below the "References" subsection below. A reference must be provided after each quote, unless they are two separate quotes that have been integrated into the same sentence (and then the citation is put after the sentence, if that makes any sense). If you feel that it is still too "messy", you may have to remove some of the quotes that are not relatively significant and revise the sentence. But every quote has to be referenced, especially on BLPs. – Ms. Sarita Confer 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a dork. I totally missed your explanation (i.e., the first reference after the quote is most likely the reference for said quote). I have left a message on DanaBoomer's talk page asking her if this is okay. I'm sure it is, but I just want to make sure. – Ms. Sarita Confer 10:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    See comments in "References" subsection below.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Regarding the lead section, what is considered a "commercial success" in the music industry? – Ms. Sarita Confer 08:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Placing the aricle on hold. The review is complete. Just go over the last few references. Also, you need to move some of the references so that they are directly after the quotes per the policy that Dana Boomer stated at the bottom of the review. I understand that this can make the article appear "messy" and the only way around that is to pick the most important quotes to keep and make the less important quotes into prose so you don't have to reference all of them. It's been a joy to work with you.
Beautiful work, Cornucopia. I am passing the article. – Ms. Sarita Confer 12:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


References

[edit]

Criteria 2a:

  • "Early life" section:
    • "...and when her family realized that she was a talented actor, she became determined to pursue an entertainment career." I'm not quite sure why the reference after this sentence is here. It seems unnecessary.
  • "Non-musical projects" section:
    • "Milian first significant acting role was offered by Disney Channel to join The Mickey Mouse Club, however she did not accept and opted to star as a reporter on Movie Surfers." You only need one reference for this and I would keep reference 55 (the AskMen.com interview) since it is more detailed, but you have to change the URL of that reference to the first page of the interview (since the first page has the corresponding information).
    • Reference 61: "...which was rated as the sixth most watched show for the week on cable, with 4.4 million viewers." Reference does not mention Snowglobe.

Quotes

[edit]

Early life

It's About Time, 2003–2005

So Amazin', 2006–2007

Future music, 2008

Personal life

  • ..."a big sister to foster children,"...
  • She said that she had "never been rewarded that way and never been acknowledged like that. That was really nice of them, and I was happy I was able to show up for the kids." In this sentence, I would write it something like, She said, "I’ve never been rewarded that way and never been acknowledged like that. That was really nice of them, and I was happy I was able to show up for the kids."
  • ..."[has] no idea who Eric West is".
  • ..."make it work".

Here are some quotes that I believe can be revised into prose. I don't believe that they add anything more whether they are in quotes or are written in prose. Let me know what you think. – Ms. Sarita Confer 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize there were so many redundant quotes. Thanks for taking the time and naming them all, and I belive they have all been fixed/merged. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny because I didn't realize it either until I looked over the article again. There actually weren't as many as I thought. – Ms. Sarita Confer 12:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DanaBoomer

Hi all... I just wanted to introduce myself to Cornucopia, as I'm lurking around this review. Cornucopia, Ms. Sarita asked me to be her "mentor" for her first few GA reviews, so I'm going to be hanging around, reading everything, and maybe commenting a little bit. So far, from what I've seen, Ms. Sarita, you have done a great job with the review. Very thorough, especially with the references. Nice work, and I'll keep lurking. I have this page watchlisted, so drop me a note here if you've got any questions for me regarding this review. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Nice to know that this page is receiving extra attention. ;) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put my response to the references down here, so that it doesn't get lost in the constructive discussion above :) Per WP:REF, you need to have a reference directly after a quote. I know it gets messy, but this is what the rules say... Another suggestion (brought up by Ms. Sarita on my talk page) would be to integrate some of the less necessary quotes into the prose so that you didn't need so many refs in the middle of sentences. Dana boomer (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that rule, but I think it's more of a rule of thumb. Have a look at the recently promoted FA's: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2008. I think most, if not all, have quotes that are not directly followed by a ref. A specific example: The Other Woman. Reviewers found several prose problems, however none said anything about the ref problem. If FA reviewers do not find this to be a problem, I'm guessing it will be fine for a good article. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if they're letting it go at FA, then it'll be fine at GA. I wish they would make up their minds... *grumble, grumble, sigh* :) I guess the best solution would be to integrate some of the quotes if you can, and make sure the rest are referenced someplace nearby (which you seem to have already). And I have no idea what's going on with the formatting...this is a different template than I usually use, so I'm not sure what to tweak to get it to go back right again... Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dana Boomer. I appreciate it. So, Cornucopia, just go through the article real quick and try to fix some of the quotes if you can. Just clean it up a little. Let me know when you're finished. – Ms. Sarita Confer 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried going through the article, but I cannot find places that need to be fixed. There is a quote directly after most quotes, and in some cases, directly after the next sentence. Are there any place in particular that you feel need fixing? I can't see any, so tell me what you think. :) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christina_Milian/GA1&oldid=1054907215"