Jump to content

Talk:Mila Kunis/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General
Red XN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dead links.Fsm83 (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two links are still a problem: this and this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD
  • I know that a reader who just reads the LEAD of this article is not reading a summary. The encyclopedic content of her Early life section is not present. The LEAD is suppose to summarize the article. The lead should tell the reader important highlights like she is an immigrant who had a tough transition and was a long-time partner of Macaulay Culkin. I should not have the feeling after reading the first section that I am surprised. We want more of a warm and fuzzy feeling after the introduction, that yes the LEAD eased me into this topic. The best thing to do is look at each section of the article and make sure a summary of it is included in the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also mention that she regularly appears on sex symbol rankings lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did make a reference to the many times listed on the Maxim list in recent years. Are you suggesting that should be in the first paragraph?Fsm83 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually see Maxim in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed Fsm83 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Television
 Done Fixed. -Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Film work, 2001–2008
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews cited for Max Payne only say that she's miscast, but don't elaborate on. it. There isn't much to quote.Aquila89 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Boise Weekly review seems to include some explanatory content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2009–present
There are four quotes. I think that's already too much. If we want to add a negative one, shouldn't we delete some before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquila89 (talk • contribs) 11:36 (UTC)
Not really. Judge each quote by its encyclopedic content contribution. Kate Winslet has 4 quotes in the first subsection of her career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not all of them are about one single movie. Aquila89 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Each quote that adds encyclopedic content is acceptable. There is no counting. Look at each quote and see if it helps us present a clearer summary of her role. In this case each is additive and encyclopedic. If it was an important role you could have twenty quotes and make it its own article. Just look for encyclopedic content and try to be neutral.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a quote, but it was deemed unneccessary and removed. Aquila89 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the THR comments, but the Chicago Tribune review helps me understand the significance of her role.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed. Aquila89 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned her Golden Globe Award and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations for Best Supporting Actress." - either link to XXth Z Awards or link to the specific Best actress award links. These are her most important critical recognition. Let's make sure the reader can access the detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done FixedFsm83 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you link to the XXth GG Awards and XXth SAG Awards articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media publicity
I'm not sure what you are suggesting or asking for here? Fsm83 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • I believe that "does not use voice chat in the game after another player recognized her voice" should say "has not used voice chat in the game since another player recognized her voice" and specify an approximate time when her voice was recognized.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She discussed this on an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel in October 2008. But she does not discuss the specific time it happened so that would be difficult to reference. You can view clip at 4:50 mark for reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrHfNatAmp8 Fsm83 (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Make it in a 2008 interview...had not used voice chat in the game since another player recognized her voice--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed.Fsm83 (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, she never declined. That was a made up story started by Billy Bush. While on the press junket for FWB in July she spoke about it telling people to not believe Billy Bush and confirming that she was going. The story was as simple as that.....she saw the invite while on the press junket in July and agreed to go to the November event and did.Fsm83 (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it violate WP:BLP or other policy to explain the confusing rumors in the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's important enough to be included. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Aquila89 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In truth, I think this was a PR misdirect to lessen the media scrutiny.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and nominations
This has been discussed on the message board before as it is difficult to find sources that go back to achievements in the late 90s. I have seen a few pictures with her getting these awards as a teenager, but no real credible source. But I have noticed other articles, such as Scarlett Johansson that is listed as a good article with no source links for awards, so I am not clear on if a source is needed.Fsm83 (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I believe award and nomination facts like this that are probably unreliably sourced by IMDb.com but not reliably sourced should remain in the article unless they are disputed. I was asked to remove similar from "Hill Street Station" by a reviewer who hid the awards I could not source. I don't really agree with that. I think it benefits the reader with the understanding that they are probably correct but difficult to source. I'll excuse them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Red XN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added the tag to all images. Nymf hideliho! 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, Fsm83 is still waiting for a response from you on said user's (talk) page, and Nymf isn't engaged at the moment and would need a specific request in order to respond. Since the original nominator hasn't been involved, these two look like the best shot for finishing this off; if they're no longer interested, then I imagine the article won't make it this time around. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The reviewer appeasr to have missed the outsanding cleanup tags: [Articles with unsourced statements (April 2010, January 2012, March 2010), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (February 2012)] Some of these date back over a year. All should have been addressed before nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that Filmographies have to be sourced for WP:GA. In this case the awards are separately listed, but it remains quite common to allow an article to be promoted without is filmography being sourced line-by-line.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it should not be promoted with those outstanding banners and tags still in place. If there is no need for them, they should be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I have missed something, you have addressed all of my concerns. I am now going to PASS this article. Thanks for your efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mila_Kunis/GA1&oldid=647836675"