Talk:Tonya Harding/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 12:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have nominated this for Good Article status. I have only skimmed through the article, however, I find that big changes are required before this can be a GA. Please see my advice and comments below.

The Figure skating record table should be put under its own heading, and not a sub-heading. The heading could be called "Competitive highlights", "Results" or something of that nature.

Done — Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heading Attack on Nancy Kerrigan and aftermath does not seem appropriate to me. Try rewording it without the victim's name, eg. Cobo Arena incident / Criminal assault / Legal issues.

Done — Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section contains 15 paragraphs without any sub-headings. It should be divided into further sections to ease the flow. Perhaps, "Background", "Trial and sentencing", "Aftermath" and something about Harding's confession/involvement.

Done — Although maybe this can be condensed a bit :) Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heading Later celebrity should be renamed 'Later career' or 'Other television work' (or something similar). Some of the material there could be shifted to the Personal life section. Try to keep it in consistent paragraphs and avoid 2/3 lines.

Done — Maybe improvements are still needed, though. This section is sporadic. Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section Boxing career is worthy of its own heading and should not be placed under 'Later celebrity'.

Done — Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section Cultural significance contains excessive detail and should be trimmed. Bullet points are only effective for short lines — the last bullet point is too big. You could also divide this section into "Books", "Film", "Television" or whatever categories they are.

Done — I don't know if it's neccessary to divide the sections into Books, Film, TV etc. I stuck with the notables, yet maybe there are some you still want to cut altogether. I'm open to that. Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section Academic assessment could be under its own heading if its important enough - otherwise I think it's okay

Done — I guess its a matter of interpretation if the section needs its own heading. I didn't think it did, although I welcome other opinions. Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also question some of the material/points made there. For example, it states, "her name is often first associated with the 1994 scandal" but there is no source(s).

Done — I personally find this self-evident, it is one of the first things written on biography.com. For encyclopedic reasons, I find this appropriate. Hammelsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the main issues which need addressing before it is near GA-level. I could put this nomination on-hold which gives you time to improve it. Or I could fail it now and you can re-submit when ready. I appreciate the work that you and your editors have done so far. It definitely has potential. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 12:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Lizzy150:, Over the last few weeks, I've made some article changes per your suggestions. I would certainly appreciate your feedback. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hammelsmith:

Thank you for editing this article. I've just had a quick read to jog my memory. Here goes..

For section 3 documenting the assault, I think 13 sub-headings is overdoing it, so that needs a rethink. I get the impression that this section is a bit too detailed. Perhaps other editors can weigh in on this. For instance, I counted approximately 27/28 quotes. The short ones are okay but I think there are too many (the longer ones make the article read like a magazine rather than an encyclopaedic article). See MOS: Quotations for guidance. Some sentences contain between 3 and 5 references (eg. "There was now much speculation about Harding's alleged involvement in the assault plot.[77][78][79][80][81]" which isn't necessary - usually just one or two reliable sources will do. I also think some work needs to be done to evaluate the references, as it appears some have just been blindly bolted-on at the end of a sentence without due diligence. Did you check that each source supports the statement?

In addition, some of the language lacks an encyclopaedic tone, especially under "Subsequent responses from Kerrigan, Gillooly, & Harding". The narrative is a bit odd at times and it sounds like a day-by-day account, rather than a summary of facts. See Wikipedia: Tone for more information. The "Later career" section could do with some merging of the paragraphs for a more consistent prose.

I'm not too sure about the "Representation in other media" section. Firstly, the bullet lists are mostly not being used correctly - see MOS: Lists. Lists should only be used for brief sentences or phrases. My other concern, however, is that it may be slightly off-topic (see Wikipedia: Stay on topic). Is all this detail needed? If yes, can it be written in prose and integrated with the rest of the article? I personally don't think a bullet list is appropriate, nor does it serve justice for the content. Perhaps it might help to look at other biographies which cover "In the media" of a celebrity, to get some inspiration on prose, for instance Angelina Jolie. I'm not sure what to do with the "Academic assessment" section. There definitely could be some fine-tuning. Is the honors thesis a reliable source? Are those authors' essays a representative viewpoint? I'm worried this section may not represent a Neutral point of view.

I hope this feedback/constructive criticism is useful. The article is definitely better than it was a year ago, but it still needs polishing to meet GA standards. I'm sure if you consult other GA reviewers, they'll probably say the same thing. This article may benefit from a peer review and require more input and copyedits from others, as I feel like this may go beyond yours and my experience. Digging through the talk archives, I believe @Premeditated Chaos: also suggested some of the points I mentioned above last year. Are there any other editors of Harding's article who could help? I'll be glad to hear your thoughts on how we proceed going forward. Many thanks, Lizzy (talk 21:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article doesn't meet GA criteria yet, and will take more than 7 days to resolve, I have marked this as 'failed' for now. It should be renominated in the future when ready. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 10:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]