Talk:Lily Cole/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 5 albert square (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone!

OK, I thought I would take up the challenge of reviewing this article!

These are a few things for everyone to get on with meantime:

Education section

NCould this be combined with the modelling career section? It's just that both are quite short sections and the education section does start "despite her successful modelling career".

I'm not sure on that one. I started it like that because she has always maintained she would go to uni and the tabloids made quite a big deal of it when she actually went. Also, "education" is not a section in its own right, it's a subheading within "Early and personal life" to break up quite a big section. HJMitchell You rang? 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute - education as part of 'Early and personal life'?! She's still doing it! The implication being she only has early life so far. True, perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.86.109 (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YThe education section, does this really need to state that she deferred entry until 2007 and then until 2008? Can't it just say that she deferred until 2008?

Well she deferred twice (again leading to rampant speculation in the tabloids) and both are well documented in reliable sources, so I think it's necessary, though could perhaps be clarified. HJMitchell You rang? Reworded. HJMitchell You rang? 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YAlso did she actually study Social and Political Sciences? It says that was the original course but then says that she is now reading History of Art. Did she drop her original subject? What happened there?

reworded slightly (she never started the politics course, but switched to art after deferring. Again!- any better? HJMitchell You rang?

Nude appearances

Question: In the nude appearances section it says that she has encountered both praise and criticism. It states one particular criticism that she received, but is there any other criticism that she received?

It's in the same paragraph- there was the whole "pornography v art" debate (which is not overly relevant to Lily) and there were several parties levelling the criticisms. Leave it with me, I'll try to clarify it (same for below) HJMitchell You rang? 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YWhat praise did she receive?

M&S came out in her support, as did a few others with the whole "pornography v art" argument. I'm pretty sure they're all mentioned in the article. HJMitchell You rang? 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I would suggest flipping the advertising and nude appearances section as the advertising mentions more about her role advertising for M&S. With the way the page is just now, M&S is suddenly mentioned in the middle of the article with nothing to state about how she became involved with them.

I've added a little context to the M&S stuff (M&S is also mentioned in the lead) but flipping the section wouldn't work because the "nude appearances" is a sub-sub section of "Magazines" (the nude appearances were in magazines, with the exception of the Pirreli calendar, but it's better suited there than elsewhere). I'm also keen not to put too much weight on these photos

Film section

YIn the film section, can I suggest that her roles are put into a table? Liv Tyler's page is also a GA, I think this is an excellent example of where the tables work. It would make it a lot clearer to anyone who's not familiar with her.

Hmm, I'd never thought of that. She hasn't had a large number of roles and most of them were quite small but I see no harm in a "Filmography" section. HJMitchell You rang?

YIn the film section it mentions that she took part in a series called T Takes, but it mentions nothing else about the series. Did she play a particular role?

I'll see what I can dig up but I wouldn't hold your breath- I've never heard of it and it doesn't appear to have a WP article. HJMitchell You rang?

Managed to find a little more info and a ref. HJMitchell You rang? 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YI would suggest removing the other roles section. It only mentions that she did some work for Comic Relief and starred in the video Can't Go back. As Comic Relief is a charity, I would suggest moving the sentence about this to the charity work section. We could leave the sentence about the video in her acting career section but it would need a fair bit of expansion. What exactly did she do in the video?

You're probably right there, it was only yesterday I sorted that out- the section was a bit long so I decided to stick in subheadings, resulting in that! As I understand it, it was a very minor role so there's not really much to say about it but it looks a bit lonely there so I'll find a way to incorporate it. HJMitchell You rang?

Expanded, fleshed out and better referenced. HJMitchell You rang? 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

I'm assuming that because she's a model and actress that she has been nominated for some awards and probably won some in the past but I can't seem to find any suggestion or reference to this. It might be an idea to put something like this in a table again, with just a short reference to it in the main article.

She won Model of the Year in 2004 (already in there) but that's the only award I've found. She's quite new to acting- she's only had one major role and that was last month so there won't be any awards for that yet. HJMitchell You rang? 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's enough for starters, I'll check back on this in a few days! --5 albert square (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know the template says that the review will close after 7 days, but don't worry, I will keep the review open as long as possible! --5 albert square (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I ran this article through AWB tonight, no major issues showed up but I will run it through this again once the changes have been finished.

Much obliged to you! HJMitchell You rang? 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! --5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Suggestion, instead of hosting her awards on another page, as she's only won one can we make it a separate section? I didn't see anything about an award before and I can't help but feel that this would make the article slightly clearer and make sure that her award is more noticeable --5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion, that we flip the filmography and charity work sections. That way all information regarding the films she has been in will be in one place.

Keep up the good work, this article is very near GA status now! --5 albert square (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with you but I feel it's better to keep the prose and the tables separate. Also Liv Tyler (your example above) John Barrowman (which I'm reviewing for GA at present) and Brad Pitt which is on its way to FA status all have the filmography at the end.
As for the award, I honestly don't think it's worth doing that because, as far as I can see, she's only won one award and it's not that notable. Obviously if she'd won a lot or very notable awards, I might reconsider, but Brad Pitt and John Barrowman (I based it loosely on both of these) don't have separate tables for awards.

I have a few more things I need to finish off before it can be promoted, but I don't foresee that taking very long. Anything else that sticks out to you as needing fixing? HJMitchell You rang? 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no again nothing major comes to mind, I had to put this article again through AWB tonight and again nothing major showed up, anything that did show up would've been rectified immediately by me. So once these issues are sorted out, I'm happy with the article. --5 albert square (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AWB run-through (I checked- it just removed lang=English and "0"s from the refs. Quite boring really! HJMitchell You rang? 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link checker

Checklinks shows 4 dead or broken links, but the article isn't depending on any of them, so I'd say that's pretty successful. I've a feeling I have another ref for one or two of the facts to which the dead refs are attached and the others have another ref. That said, of course feel free to check for yourself. HJMitchell You rang? 04:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK checked the links, have found new ones where I can and removed any duplicate ones. Do you want to check over this again? --5 albert square (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's amazing! Is there anything else it needs? Would you mind running your AWB over it again to make sure everything's in order? HJMitchell You rang? 23:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo!! All the links are now clear!! No idea why it wouldn't take the BBC links but it's taken the Metro's and that's all I'm worried about! Going to put it through a final AWB check, providing that doesn't show up any nasty little horrors I'll be happy to pass this --5 albert square (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'm not quite sure what went on there, but it works now. Anyway, if you were using the "linchecker" tool, you should ignore the green highlighted links- it happens a lot with BBC links (and The Irish Times for some reason) but it doesn't really mean anything. I'm happy if you're happy! HJMitchell You rang? 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]