Talk:Paulina Alexis

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating this article on a Canadian First Nations woman actor!

Netherzone (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimer message

FYI

 – Added section header. GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

So what's the problem that requires a disclaimer message? I'm the one who wrote 99% of the page. I don't see what the problem is. I've made over 300 edits. Having such a disclaimer at the beginning of the article to "help improve this page" is ironic, since I wrote the vast majority of it, and I'm disappointed to see that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's quite arbitrary "quality standards". I know that I wrote it, but objectively this is the most well-written and detailed wiki article I've ever seen, and it's actually pretty insulting that it's not up to your "standards", but that's Wikipedia, full of judgement, classism, and hegemonic reasoning to imply "thanks for your hard work, but the article kind of sucks, and it's not good enough to be considered 'Class B'..." It's kind of laughable that non-doctorate administrators have this kind of authority to decide what's good "style". I divided the article into subsections galore, have reference over 200 citations, so what is enough for you guys? I'm constantly disappointed with this platform, and it's unfounded judgement of what is "good enough", and I'll never write another article. Also that kind of message discourages readers from reading the page at all like it's "inferior" to other Wikipedia pages. Like I said it's pretty laughable that I can write thousands of words and make hundreds of edits, and it's still not up to arbitrary "ikipedia quality standards", when you guys have absolutely no basis in MLA format, which is what I've been trained in and practiced for years. You do realize that even Wikipedia says that scholars should not rely on its services, so why are you such sticklers for style, when your style is not reliable to intellectuals? Food for thought. Colin.r.neary (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Colin.r.neary: Hi there, and thank you for improving this article! I've invited the IP editor who left the disclaimer message on the article to discuss it here. Many people are surprised that Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anyone can edit - has policies and guidelines. You might also be interested in reading WP:MOS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:OWN and WP:FANCRUFT. Any editor (not just administrators) can rate an article up to class B per Wikipedia:Content assessment. You've done a lot of work on the article since the assessment, so maybe it needs to be reassessed. I believe "intellectuals" have concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia because anyone can edit Wikipedia (not the house style), although some independent studies have found Wikipedia's reliability in some areas comparable to other encyclopedias. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thanks for the invite. Since I use Wikipedia across different devices, I don't always notice if I'm signed in when editing.

@Colin.r.neary Hey there, thank you for your continued contributions and efforts to improve this article. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative platform. It is through this collaboration articles are enhanced and refined, which serves to better the community as a whole. My rationale in adding the cleanup tag a few weeks back was not in any way meant to diminish your work so far. Simply, it was to encourage the continuous revision of the article by opening up the editing process and inviting more editors to refine and enhance the content. As mentioned in the edit summary at the time, while the article is detailed, it reads like a memoir and seems to be missing some of the neutrality that is useful in articles like this. Many of the sections could be combined and trimmed, this would help make the article more impartial. Again, the disclaimer is not a reflection on the work you have put into the article or the quality of your writing. As GoingBatty mentioned, Wikipedia has standards and guidelines. These are in place to maintain reliability, neutrality, and a consistent style across articles. The guidelines help ensure the information presented is accurate, and fair and upholds the standards of verifiability. While you certainly have written the majority of the article, and no one is arguing otherwise, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia allows multiple editors to refine content to meet these standards. The cleanup tag is a common practice throughout Wikipedia and again is used to encourage additional perspectives to improve articles. I hope it's clearer now that my intentions were good. Happy to answer any questions; keep up the great work! 74.108.138.203 (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Colin.r.neary: there are unfortunately pervasive issues with WP:FANCRUFT and poor-quality sources in this article. I see there's been a history of reversion of cleanup efforts in the past such as [1]; that needs to stop ASAP. VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Headings and Subheadings

Most of the headings seem more like chapters in an autobiography than ones you'd find in an encyclopedia. Most BLPs are not structured like this. compare this article to a similarly well-acclaimed co-star of Paulina's, D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the article had far too many small sections per MOS:OVERSECTION as well. I think these issues have largely been addressed at this point. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)