Talk:Brenda Song/GA2

GA Review

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

• Comments. I randomly clicked a link in the refs to a Variety story on Shin Koyamada. there is a two-author byline: Stacy Todd & Byron Perry. The ref should include their names, but doesn't. This is NOT RELEVANT for GA, but all refs should be checked for appropriate formatting anyhow.
• Two name-checks to Tisdale. Both should be dropped as irrelevant. but this is probably also irrelevant to GA.
• I dunno. You may wanna take another look at the lede. It doesn't mention the lawsuit, forex.
• Everything else look OK for GA, at least upon preliminary inspection. But i won't PASS GA; I defer to Jclemens.
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A bit of WP:OVERLINK: Homemaker? sitcoms? Logic error: if she "starred in the Disney movie Stuck in the Suburbs" in 2004, then how could she have "her first starring role in the 2006 Disney Channel Original Movie Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior"? "The role was not exaggerated like the other roles she played" lacks context--you haven't told me that or how her other roles were exaggerated. I'm willing to bet she posed for the covers of Seventeen, etc., rather than on them. "When asked if she plans to break into the music scene with an album, Song said in 2005" if it was significant that she replied in 2005, when was the question asked?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Excellent. You could have spent less time on the references and more time seeking out a good copyeditor, however.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Where's the critical reception?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Did Song ever do anything stupid or lame? Not per this article--I'm sure someone has to have hated her work, so address this with critical commentary per #3, above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Marginal. There's still a lot of nonsense being added with some regularity, but I won't hold it against the article any more than I would any other vandalism--the fact that it's misguided fans isn't your fault.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The description of Image:Brenda-song-escord-ad.jpg is wrong, and it could really stand an explicit fair use rationale for this article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Needs major copyediting to improve the presentation of a well-sourced article. Second major deficiency is a critical reception category and associated information. On hold for at least a week. I will not fail an article from hold while ongoing improvements are being made: keep working, and I'll keep providing feedback. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

On the lead, there used to be some mention of the lawsuit but other editors removed it. At this point, I don't care either way. The NYT refers to Wu as her "first starring role". It's the first show where she's the lead. On references - this article had all sorts of false info for quite some time. The extensive referencing is a product of verifying the contents of the article. As for criticism, there is some criticism about the roles she's played, but there really isn't much directly about her outside blogs and such. I could probably add some review panning Road Trip, although as far as I know none of them directly mention Song. What's the problem with the escort image? Gimmetrow 05:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the prob. I switched the words "left" and "right". PLease vrify accuracy. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple of other issues--old section name referenced, wasn't really a headshot, and the descriptions of the pictures were a bit off. It's fixed now. Jclemens (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-Review

Be sure to let me know when you're ready for a re-review. It's been a week, and I've seen a good bit of activity, but I don't want to reevaluate it prematurely. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Second message Is this ready to be reviewed again? Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pass

Passed per improvements and the last copyediting tweaking I did. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

{ec} Comment - I have done what editing I could and made a Critical reception section out of portions in the other sections of the article. I have looked for references, and there and I believe what is available has been used in the article. I think the article is greatly improved. I see during our edit conflict, you passed it. I agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)