Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hilary Duff/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Hilary Duff

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. This GAR has been open for well over a month. While many (but not all) of the concerns raised here have been addressed as they arose, the article still does not meet GA criteria. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over a month ago, I started a GA reassessment of this article as I didn't feel it met the criteria. I happened to have been involved in a content dispute revolving what I believed (and still believe) was unencyclopedic, gossip-rag content. As a result, I was asked by numerous editors to step down and let a community reassessment take place, which I gladly did. One was never started, and it's been quite a long time. I still do not feel this article meets the good article criteria, so I am opening this community reassessment.

I've found a bunch of issues that are not compliant with the good article criteria.

  • In the third paragraph of the lead, "Duff has also launched clothing lines including, 'Stuff by Hilary Duff', and Femme for DKNY Jeans and two exclusive perfume collections with Elizabeth Arden." The commas before and after "Stuff by Hilary Duff" (which does not need to be in quotation marks) are unnecessary; a comma would better work after "Femme for DKNY Jeans."   Done
Fixed. Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2001-2003: "Lizzie McGuire, which first aired on the Disney Channel." This is not a complete thought.   Done
Fixed. Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not adequately summarize the article, it only provides a few general introductory facts.
the lead provides information of her albums, upcoming releases and general summarisation of the article...what more can be added??? pls suggest.. Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead essentially lists off her albums and films. It does not fully summarize the article. –Chase (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pls suggest as to what should be added in the Lead.... Hilary Duff is a actress and a singer by profession. It is natural to have the lead paragraph describe her movies and albums alongwith the awards and album sales....if u have anything better to add pls suggest....Gprince007 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, her career is not the only thing discussed in the article. Perhaps FAs such as Michael Jackson should be referenced for what I am trying to get at; its lead is a comprehensive overview of the article, this only lists off a select few of Duff's albums and movies. Leads are supposed to be introductory but they are also supposed to summarize. –Chase (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still dont get you...Michael Jackson's career has spanned over 3 decades....obviously there would be lot to write about in the lead ....Duff's career has spanned hardly a decade....still the lead paragrapgh covers her acting career, singing career and her upcoming movies....it also covers her entreprenuerial ventures....it basically summarises the article very well....What more can be added???? If you have any views, pls suggest concrete proposals instead of beating around the bush....Gprince007 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects should actually be kept as redirects, as it preserves the web archives. See Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS#Do_not_.22fix.22_redirects. Nymf talk/contr. 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few references are bare URLs.   Done
Fixed by Nymf. Gprince007 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references here, such as StarPulse and Digital Spy, are not reliable
Response to this charge has been in the Talk page of the article Gprince007 (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StarPulse is not considered reliable. I will ask about Digital Spy at the WP:RSN. I've doubted its reliability for quite awhile though. –Chase (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to link provided by you, starpulse is not entirely unreliable. The editor himself states that "They might have reliable articles"....The comment (abt starpulse being unreliable) has been made by the editor specifically for Priscilla Barnes page on the site....it might vary on case to case basis and also the editor has not explicitly stated that its unreliable. Gprince007 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editor asked if it was good for BLPs, and another editor stated that it likely wasn't due to lack of editorial control. –Chase (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor didnt say so....he expressed reservation over using this as a source for Priscilla Barnes page...Moreover only one editor seem to say that and not the whole wiki community.Gprince007 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bunch of unsourced statements, many of which are already tagged with {{fact}}.
Fixed. I have removed unsourced statements and provided some additional cites for some fact stated in the article. Gprince007 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 2004-2006 section, it is mentioned that critics appreciated Duff's performance in A Cinderella Story, but the same paragraph mentions a Razzie nomination for the role. One or two positive reviews cannot determine a film's critical reaction as a whole, and this goes for other aspects of the article that mention reception to Duff's films.
  • The personal life section goes into far unnecessary detail. In my opinion, the section could easily be removed; the only encyclopedic information here worth keeping is the information about her father cheating on her mother. Even so, I'm not so sure if that should be kept. The rest of the information here is pure gossip trash. We are an encyclopedia, not Tiger Beat.
Unnecessary detail??? A lot of trivial details have already been removed from this section....And seriously, her father cheating on her mother is notable???? This article is abt Duff and not abt her parents....So this article should focus on Duff and thats why the "Personal life" section focusses on her relationship in a brief manner. You can see previous versions of the page and compare it with current version and you'll notice that lot of gossip trash has already been removed. Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early work section, "Duff's first serious rise to fame" – if the article is going to refer to this "rise to fame" as "serious," there needs to be a cite to back it up with the article making it very clear that it is someone's opinion. As an encyclopedia based on neutral point of view, we are not to determine what is "serious" and what isn't.
Reworded the statement...Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed some things, that's about it from me. –Chase (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly no further comment has been made here. The article still has unsourced opinion: "She had more creative control over Most Wanted compared to her previous releases". These are grounds to delist, and I am willing to do so in one week, unless it is clear that problems like this are being fixed. Geometry guy 22:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the statement has been removed....though i vaguely remember having seen a cite for this statement long time ago, i cant find it as of now....so i have removed the statement.Gprince007 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who wants to work on the article here is a source with links to subarticles that might help: Hilary Duff - Allmusic. The article Hilary Takes Charge is from May 2006 and might address the specifically cited concern. Verify before using. Lambanog (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After taking a look at the article's talk page, I would say that notification of the resumption of this process has not been clear. I left a note now. Lambanog (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The TMZ article does not specifically mention the Most Wanted album, and the video the article cites does not work. –Chase (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining problems as of March 8, 2010

edit

This GAR has gone on for six weeks as of today; they aren't supposed to go on for longer than four. I suggest we quickly gain consensus on what should be done, because it would be unhelpful for the quality of this article to have another GAR with no consensus. This article has the potential to be FA status but if it remains at GA with numerous grammatical and sourcing flaws, the chances of it significantly improving are unlikely. In the meantime, I would like to look at the article a little more thoroughly and add comments; it appears some of the earlier ones have been addressed.

  • "her most commercially successful movies being Cheaper by the Dozen (2003), The Lizzie McGuire Movie (2003), and A Cinderella Story (2004)." Source?
Source is in the main article below. As per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the Lead are minimal.Gprince007 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In November 2008, she released a Greatest Hits compilation, Best of Hilary Duff with her third #1 on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play single 'Reach Out' ." Very awkwardly worded sentence. In addition, "greatest hits" does not need to be capitalized. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duff is credited as executive producer for the upcoming independent film According to Greta." The film is not upcoming, it's been released.Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is the second child of Susan Colleen [...] and husband Robert Erhard Duff" She's the daughter of her husband? Needs rephrasing. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duff's first rose to fame when she was cast as one of the children in the pilot episode of the NBC sitcom Daddio in 2000." Duff is first rose to fame does not make sense.Fixed Gprince007 (talk)
  • "It received mixed reviews, with certain critics calling it 'an unabashed promotion of Duff’s image, just as Crossroads was for Spears', Later that year, [...]" run-on.
What is your point?? I didnt get it....The sentence states criticism which is cited by multiple sources....Gprince007 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duff's first full-length studio album" I've never heard of such a thing as a full-length studio album. Her first album which is mentioned a few paragraphs above, please explain how that is not full-length? Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third single, 'Little Voice', was not released in the U.S." Source?
  • "Most shows scheduled in the major cities were completely sold out." Completely is too WP:PEACOCKy. "were sold out" will do. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 2003 episode of George Lopez, she had a role as a makeup salesperson; she later reappeared in the show in 2005 as Kenzie, a feminist poet friend of the character Carmen (Masiela Lusha). In 2003, she acted opposite her sister Haylie in American Dreams, while in 2005, she played a classmate and idolizer of the title character of Joan of Arcadia." This whole chunk of info is unsourced. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duff's second full-length album was the self-titled Hilary Duff in which she co-wrote some songs." In should be changed to for.FixedGprince007 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the film went on to become a moderate box office hit," source/expand? Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and were particularly harsh towards Duff's vocals" this is not WP:NPOV. "and were critical of Duff's vocals" is better. fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duff's third album, Most Wanted (2005), comprised her favorite tracks from her previous two albums, remixes, and three new songs which included 'Wake up'" Up needs to be capitalized, and that it consisted of her favorite tracks needs a cite (was not found in the source provided).
unsourced statement removed....Though i remember seeing a cite for this, i cant find it on the net ....will add it back when i get the cite...Gprince007 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and became her third number one debut in Canada." cite this.
The citation is present in the very next statement which states that it sold over 2 lakh copies..Gprince007 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is also a model signed to IMG Models New York." a little out of place here? Would do better in the lead or if it was explained that she became a model around this time (assuming that is the case). Fixed...Moved to Lead...Gprince007 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duff later told MuchMusic that she did not say the quotes attributed to her in the article and that the subject was 'definitely not something that I would talk about...' She denied the quotes again in a 2008 interview with Maxim magazine." If she denied the quotes twice, why is it claimed that she said such things?
The quotes were attributed to her in an Elle magazine interview, which she denied later in interviews given to MuchMusic and Maxim magazine. Its stated in the article along with the neccesary citations. Hope the matter is clarified... Gprince007 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She frequently attends his games. Comrie bought Duff a Mercedes-Benz for her 20th birthday." Totally out of place in an encyclopedia. Just making note of when they began dating and their engagement is fine, what is here now is too WP:FANCRUFTy and gossip-y. Fixed Gprince007 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

–Chase (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go on and on improving and eventually it will pass but the process shouldn't be dragged out. There is a time limit for a purpose and I'm in favour of moving on by demoting delisting it. When it's good enough it can be GA renominated. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I would add that some of the facts are based on unreliable sources such as Hillaryduff.com - not an independent or third-party source, not peer-reviewed, etc etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilaryduff.com is Hilary Duff's official homepage. It is not a fan site or forum....nor is it unreliable... Gprince007 (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Hamiltonstone means here is that Hilaryduff.com is a primary source, so could be unreliable for certain kinds of information. However, according to my checks, it is only used four times, and the material cited to Hilaryduff.com is primary source material, in my view. Only the fourth occurrence raised a GA issue for me, as ""With Love...Hilary Duff" was one of the three best-selling fragrances launched at U.S. department stores in late 2006." needs an independent (secondary) source. Geometry guy 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geometryguy is right about my main concern, however, i'm also puzzled about the use of Duff's own page as the citation for the sentence "Duff confirmed on MuchOnDemand, that she would be filming two independent films According to Greta, and What Goes Up". Why is MoD not being used as the source? As for the site itself, while one can generally rely on people to accurately report their own names and birthdays etc, we should always be cautious in relying on official sites like these in biographies. Strictly speaking, i'm not sure that they do meet normal criteria for reliability - they aren't peer-reviewed in any meaningful sense i don't think, and one can always expect an individual to put the best possible gloss on themselves on their own webpage. Nevertheless, caution does appear to have been exercised in using the official webpage in this WP article. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i must say that due caution has been exercised in using official website a source in this article....Wrt your query of using MoD as official cite, i must say that i couldnt find it on MoD so i used her official website as a reference to her interview on MoD. Anyways most of statements which use hilaryduff.com as its source is personal details... remaining statement are all mostly third party cites....Gprince007 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can't find it on MoD, take it out. you can't use her website as a source for what was published in MoD. Use of some very dubious sources is a problem here, Amazon, Peta1, Starpulse, Itunes, Digital Spy are not reliable sources. The Philanthropy section conatins much repetitive porse and appeasr overly promotional in tone. The Lead does not fully summarise the article, no mention is made of the Razzies, her UN work, critical reception, animal right support, criticism of her by animal rights organisations. Plesae check out WP:LEAD. I suggest delist now and let the artcile be brought back to WP:GAN when it has been improved. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hilary_Duff/1&oldid=1138522419"