Wikipedia:Peer review/Angelina Jolie/archive1

Angelina Jolie

To all willing editors, I am requesting a Peer Review for the article Angelina Jolie. Any suggestions and ideas will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Some points of intresest

Extensive research has been done in her humanitation work
So many sub-sections in the article (children, years) seem a bit strange to me, any ideas on that.
The pictures all seem to fit fair use. Myrockstar 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill Ambassador links to a disambig page. Jon513 03:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended some of the sections in the last months and I would say most of the text is pretty accurate and well cited considering how much news stories are out there about her. I think I can say that there is no major mistake in the article at the moment. I don't consider the sub-sections as to excessive because of the general length of the article. The article still needs a longer lead section of course and it might be a good idea to create a seperate article "Angelina Jolie's Humanitarian Work" like it has be done with many sections for the very long Madonna article. This would allow to accumulate all information about her humanitarian work in a different page, but at the same time shorten the section in this article and put it in a more comprehensive form since it is rather listy. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Table of contents is far too long, sections need to go. The lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. The tatoos and trivia sections are unencyclopedic and the content should be worked into the text or removed. The information on her children also goes beyond what is necessary for an encyclopedia entry, it draws too heavily on tabloid accounts all that is really necessary is to say she has three kid and two were adopted. Quotes should not be italicised, per the WP:MoS. Fair use images sould have propper fair use rationales--Peta 12:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the table is very long. I think sections should be merged. I also think the information on her huminatarian work is a lot for the article, but I don't think it should have it's own article. Is so much detailed information really needed? The info on her acting career is also somewhat short in my opinion, at least compared to her hum. work. I think some things in the trivia aren't really needed, and other things could easily be worked into the bio section. As for her tattoos, well I think they are an important part of Angelina, but I don't see how they could be merged into something, perhaps not having the section in bullets might help. Myrockstar 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the idea to just delete "Tattoos" and "Trivia"; take a look at the discussion page or the page's history, it's obivous these are rather popular sections for many readers. If anything I would suggest to create a sub-article that could include the lists of both, her tattoos and the general trivia, comparable to articles like this: Madonna trivia. --Sloan21 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]