Talk:Lucille Ball/GA

GA Review part 1

Hello. I'm going to be reviewing the article for its Good Article nomination. I like to do my reviews in several parts, so this will be part uno. Look for a new part every (or every other) day. I'll let you know when I'm done reviewing the article and when the one week hold will begin. Until then, try and get to the following when you can:

Issues resolved, Nikki311 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• In early life and career, her father's occupation should be sourced, and the info about her mom being "lively and energetic" should be removed as POV. Done
• Who considered Johnny DeVita a "bad boy". That sounds POV unless the statement can be sourced or explained why he was called such. Done
• Once again, who said Bette Davis outshone Ball?  Done
• "Ball would later state that this was the film that first got her recognition" - citation needed

Removed sentence as no reliable source could be found  Done

• Is all the info in the first paragraph of I Love Lucy and Desilu cited by ref 25?

Yes this cite encompassed the whole paragraph. Done

• "when the couple finally found time to attend a Hollywood movie premiere in late 1953, the entire star-studded audience stood and turned with a thunderous applause" - source?

Removed statement as there were no valid sources to be found.  Done

• In Children and divorce, cite the info about miscarriages. Done
• In the same section, cite the info about Arnaz's drinking problem. Done
• "ending one of television's greatest marriages" is POV. Stop the sentence after the word "divorced" Done
• Cite the info about staying friends after the divorce and speaking lovingly of each other. Done
• "Morton told interviewers at the time that he had never seen Ball on television, since he was always performing during primetime."

No source found. Removed from article.  Done

• "(Source: Frankenheimer's DVD audio commentary.)" - put the <ref> tags around it so it ends up the notes and not in the text.
• "During the mid-1980s, she attempted to resurrect her television career. In 1982, Ball hosted a two-part Three's Company retrospective, showing clips from the show's first five seasons, summarizing memorable plotlines, and commenting on her love of the show. The second part of the special ended with her receiving a kiss on the cheek from John Ritter." - source?  Done
• "However, her 1986 sitcom comeback Life With Lucy, costarring her longtime foil Gale Gordon and co-produced by Ball, Gary Morton, and former actor Aaron Spelling, was a critical and commercial flop which was cancelled less than two months into its run by ABC." - source that is was a flop?  Done
• In the Death section, every sentence without a source should have one. Done
• In the infobox, the award "1976 9 Emmys Awarded for Thirty Years of Television Success" has the following hidden note "<!-- what's this all about? -->" - clarification?

This seems to be some possible vandalism that went unresolved. Removed..  Done

• Make sure all the citations are formatted correctly with the Template:cite web. #s 35, 49-52, and 55-57 look incorrect because the url is visible  Done
• In the Legacy and posthumous recognition section, almost every sentence begins with "In (date)"...try and mix it up a bit.
• IMDB is not a reliable source, so anytime that is used in the article, that source needs to be replaced.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead of the article should be expanded to summarize all the main points of the article. For an article this size, it should be three or four well developed paragraphs.  Done

Issues resolved, Nikki311 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The 1960 Broadway musical Wildcat was a successful sell-out that ended its run early when Ball became too ill to continue in the show." - source?  Done
• The following are also not considered reliable sources and must be exchanged for better sources: tv.com, everything2.com (doesn't look reliable, what makes it reliable?), lucyfan.com (and any other "fan sites"), whosdatedwho.com (what makes it reliable?), answers.com, findagrave.com

I have to protest this one a little. As an entertainment historian and an expert on Lucy, Some of these sites are 3rd party sites and very reliable. tv.com, everything.com, whosdatedwho. These sites get their information from publications such as TV guide and the likes. So, I think those are fine to leave as they are. I agree with some of the other ones and will look for more reliable sourcing.

Let me explain. TV.com, for example, can be edited by anyone, which is why it isn't considered a reliable source. Read WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. Please provide a link to a page where it explains their fact checking processes, research methods, and whether they have a staff of writers or if anyone can contribute. Nikki311 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand where you are coming from. I also understand how these individuals get their information and the proceedure they go through to get it and the fact verification used for it to be retained. I will try to find other resources and change them out. If I cannot find such sources, I will have no other choice but to delete the item or rewrite it. I believe the other stuff that you have asked to be done has come together rather nicely.

Found book sources and removed web cites to replace with book cites.  Done

Try and get on these problems, and I'll be back tomorrow or the next day with part 2 of my review. Don't worry about getting all of these problems addressed before the next review is posted, as long as progress is being made...I'm happy. I think the biggest problem in the article is citing sources and using reliable web sources. Your best bet is probably going to be forgoing the web sources altogether and using some published book sources. I, for one, use to be a HUGE I Love Lucy fan in my younger years (which is why I wanted to review this article) and use to own a several Lucille Ball biographies. Citing this information shouldn't be difficult with the right couple of books or a few "legitimate news articles". If you have any questions or comments, you can reach me here. If you want a faster reply, drop a note on my talk page. Good luck. Nikki311 17:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review part 2

SECTION TWO IS COMPLETED

Good work so far. The article is really progressing. Here's the next batch of nitpicky things to fix:

Issues resolved, Nikki311 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Numbers under 100 should be spelled out.

::I am not sure what this one means. Please give an example of what you are speaking of.

Nevermind, I just had a brain fart. I am ok now and casualties were kept to a minimum. The task is completed!  Done

• Make sure citations come after the punctuation, and there should be no space between. Done
• Short paragraphs with only one or two sentences should be merged into other paragraphs, expanded, or removed. Try to avoid this whenever possible, but I know sometimes a short paragraph has to be a short paragraph.

The paragraph about the communism needs to stay where it is because it is an important item and there really is no other place to put it without loosing its effect on the article.  Done

• The quotes in the reference section aren't formatted correctly. Add |quote=| inside the <ref>{{cite web|}}</ref> parameters and add the quote there instead of after the }}. Template:cite web shows the formatting if that helps at all. Done WHAT A JOB!!

That's it for now. I'm going to wait until some more stuff is addressed before I continue my reviews, because it will help me see the direction in which the article is going. Nikki311 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Part 3

Part 3 is completed

Issues resolved, Nikki311 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is now the appropriate length, but I think there is too much focus on her personal life and not enough on her career. Also, it is supposed to be more of a summary to get people to read the rest of the article, while not going into too many specifics. In my opinion, the first paragraph is good. The second paragraph should be more about her early movie work (like her being the Queen of Bs). The third paragraph should be about I Love Lucy and her television career afterwards. The last paragraph can mention her children, marriages, and death (when and from what). Done
• I saw a mention on your talk page about incorporating the list of radio appearances into the prose of the article. I really like that idea. A list of two items seems kind of un-needed.  Done
• I was looking through some more of the references, and Humanarchives.org has me worried. A lot of the information in this article is word-for-word in that article, as well. This needs to be either 1) re-worded or else it is a copy-vio or 2) the source needs to be eliminated altogether as they copied their information from Wikipedia, and in that case, it isn't reliable. Either way, copying has happened, and this needs to be fixed ASAP.  Done
• Do refs #46 and #8 have page numbers?  Done
• Ref #14 needs a page number, too. All book sources need page numbers (or at least chapter numbers).  Done
• Youtube can't be used as a source either for copyright reasons. That sucks, I know. Done
• When you use Google Books, you can cite the reference using the Template:cite book, citing it as a book reference instead of an internet reference.  Done
• I would cite the information about her genealogy being traced to early colonists and delete the specific information about William Sprague. It doesn't seem very focused or relevant, in my opinion. If you want it to stay, that's cool too, but source it. Done

It's getting really close! Good work so far. Nikki311 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

Great work addressing all the issues. I feel comfortable passing the article now. Congratulations on bringing this up to GA status. Nikki311 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped me to get this article to GA status! We all worked like a team and accomplished the goal! Canyouhearmenow 11:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)