Talk:Heather Mills/GA1

Refs

Current #1 missing writer details - Andrew Clennell.
Current #5 missing publishing date - November 28, 2004, also change title to "Investigation: The girl can't help it.
Current #9 should be changed to "The Times" for consistency with others.
Current #11 needs a retrieve date.
Current #13 needs a retrieve date.
Current #14 missing publishing date - November 28, 2004, also change title to "Investigation: The girl can't help it.
Current #17 needs a retrieve date.
Current #19 missing publishing date - November 28, 2004, also change title to "Investigation: The girl can't help it.
- Note Current refs #14 and #19 should now be identical, there isn't a need to write them out in full twice.
Current #20 needs a retrieve date.
Current #23 needs a publishing and retrieve date.
Current #32 needs a retrieve date.
Current #33 needs a retrieve date.
Current #32 and #34 are repeats of one another, no need for full source repeating.
Current #33 and #35 are the same, no need to repeat. Also its "The Daily Telegraph". Remember writer, date and access date when you format (you did it right just making sure you do it right again :-))
Current #37 link to Youtube, quite sure its banned on wikipedia.
Current #38 needs retrieve date.
Current #39 needs publish date - (12-03-2007)
Current #47 needs publisher - (BBC)
Current #53 needs a retrieve date
Current #57 are two Youtube links
Current #60 needs a writer - (Finlo Rohrer)
Current #67 is a dead link
Current #68 need a retrieve date

Accuracy

"and accepted an out-of-court settlement from Mills.[1]" - The ref doesn't mention a settlement.
"Jim Guy, the owner of Penrose Jewellers, said, "Everything she wrote about me was lies, I never gave her a job; she just hung around and made tea. She told me her father was dead. The only thing that was true was she nicked [stole] stuff from the shop". - That doesn't seem sourced to me
"Mills got engaged to documentary filmmaker Chris Terrill in 1999, but ended their relationship only five days before their planned wedding day. Mills later claimed (falsely) that she had called the wedding off because Terrill was both gay, an MI6 agent, and his mission was to undermine her anti-landmine work." - This is incorrect at least looking at the source provided. There is no proof that Mills said these things about him, he said he heard about it from friends etc. Thus these "claims" come from friends, is the man even telling the truth about what his friends told him? One thing I'm sure of, the source doesn't proof that Mills though he was gay or a member of MI6.

Neutrality

I see "she claimed" a lot, can we change it to "she stated", it's a little more neutral.
"—paid for by Karmal—", who cares? It seems like a bit of a dig against mills.
After the accident, she sold her story to the News of the World, and gave other interviews, saying she earned £180,000.[12] - Again, its only a small differences, its not worth mentioning that she's a lier etc over such a small percentage differences. Not noteworthy.
"After often denying that she was pregnant, Mills gave birth to Beatrice Milly McCartney, on 28 October 2003, who was named after Mills' mother, Beatrice, and McCartney's Aunt Milly." - No need for the denial stuff, everyone does that, its not worth mentioning.
"and not £800 million, as Mills claimed." - for neutrality it should be noted that this figure, or figures close to it were being circulated long before mills said anything.
In the activism section there is that thing about rats milk, it's an unnecessary addition to the one section of the article that portrays her in a good light. I would suggest laying of the Mills bashing just in that one section :-) I also think that section needs an expansion of positive info to balance of a rather bleak biography.
The public image and criticism section needs to include info on how she was viewed before her relationship with McCartney. This might have to involve trimming some of the negative info that is already mentioned throughout the article content.

Grammar

I see inconsistency in the use of commas, sometimes the are used along side the word "and" sometimes they are not. It's best to pick a style and run with it :-)
The are inconsistencies regarding date formation. Sometimes the date comes first, sometimes the month comes first. Sometimes there are zero commas, 1 comma or double commas to separate out the year or sentence. I follow this style [[November 30]], [[1982]],

Actually since this is a British-related article it should be [[30 November]] [[1982]] indopug (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief... "Grammar"?? I do not intend to run with any style; one does what one has learned.--andreasegde (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present Life section

Seems really out of place, that info should be taken to its relevant place within article. Also when she did that US TV show she was getting more positive media attention, might be worth mentioning.

LEAD

The lead is going to need an expansion in my opinion to reflect the whole article, although I would rather comment about this in more detail later, after I have seen the completed article body.

Comments

OK there is my review, once all that is resolved I will kind of re-review it, the article would have changed quite a bit by then I imagine, its on hold for 7 days but I don't mind letting it go a little longer. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of very minor points. As regards proper grammar there are no 'style choices' when it comes to 'and with commas', the word and replaces a comma in every instance, so if and is used it is never preceded by a comma. And secondly regarding date format I agree there should be consistency throughout the article but as this is an article about a British person and written in British English the American style of date format would be incongruous, better to use the British standard of [[30 August]] [[2008]] throughout. Although the date should really only be wiki linked if it adds a specific background knowledge to the topic at hand (a bot is currently trawling the wiki pages removing all these spurious date links) 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree about the comma + and. If you write, "I like chocolate and beer", it means both mixed together. One should write, "I like chocolate, and beer". It's the same as a tall, cool, and tasty drink.--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how commas work, well enough for a GA review anyway. :-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence--"Heather Anne Mills McCartney (née Mills) (born 12 January 1968) in Aldershot, Hampshire, to a former British paratrooper and the daughter of a British Army colonel"--doesn't make any sense. Its grammatically incorrect, and doesn't say who Mills is--socialite, model etc. I think info about her parents are unnecessary for the lead too.

Those "Further information" tags are unnecessary; they don't further detail Mills' efforts and links to land mines, veganism etc are provided in the text itself. indopug (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is grammatically incorrect?? Pray tell how you come to that conclusion. BTW, "Its grammatically" should "It's grammatically". Someone has just shot themselves in the foot, methinks...:)--andreasegde (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping in here randomly, but indopug is correct; the first sentence obviously makes no sense. "Heather Anne Mills McCartney in Aldershot, Hampshire"? I suggest: "McCartney (born 12 January 1968) is an English [add attributes here, as indopug suggested]. She was born in Aldershot..." etc. Also, is she keeping the "McCartney" in her name? If not, referring to her simply as "Heather Anne Mills" may be the best bet in the lead. María (habla conmigo) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up...--andreasegde (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? It's clear that the first sentence is nonsensical: Heather Anne Mills (born January 12, 1968) in Aldershot, Hampshire. "Mills... in Aldershot". See? It needs rewriting. María (habla conmigo) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done it. It took me a few seconds. I thank you. --andreasegde (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about comments

I would prefer this to be reviewed by one editor (Realist2) and one only. I do not like the feeling of being assailed by different editors, as it is confusing, and hectic. I once, foolishly, put an article (or two) up for FA, and hated the whole process. Realist2 was the first in line, he is a very thorough reviewer, and I have the utmost faith in him. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably my fault, I haven't reviewed in a little while so I asked for feedback because I was a little rusty, didn't want it to turn into FA, something I know you hate. Sorry --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my hang over is coming back. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't fret Realist2, Andreasegde just hates me. He'd rather point out typos in my comment than address obvious deficiencies. indopug (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Realist. FACs are like someone asking you to think of a number between one and ten. You answer "three?" and they say, "Wrong!" :))--andreasegde (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I hate you so much, Mr. Indopug, why did you come to this article which I nominated? Masochism, perhaps? Go boil your head.--andreasegde (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination failed

I will now take this article off the list, as is my right to do. I do not wish to discuss the matter at all.--andreasegde (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, have I done something wrong, the article can be worked on and it can pass, was my review too harsh? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will put the article back on the list soon, and will specifically ask for just one reviewer. A reviewer needs to be neutral. Mills is not an evil woman, but she is not a saint. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said she was but there are a number of neutrality issues that need to be addressed and if you read some of the sources in a disconnected manner you will spot some of the things I mentioned. Like that MI6/gay thing. The source simply doesn't proof that, why should we believe the words of the mans friends over Mills? Are we going to start taking sides? If someone says something bad about mills do we take it as face value fact? I think not. Me and you work on different stuff, you work in the relatively uncontroversial field of the Beatles, I write about the most controversial figure pop culture has known in decades. Maybe I just spot things differently, I have learnt to understand that gossip and hear say isn't fact, particularly on wikipedia where there is the possibility of litigation. For the sake of our friendship I will step aside from this, I'm disappointed that you think my review was anything other than neutral. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually left out a lot of stuff that put her in a bad light, so as to be fair. I will now proceed to put the truth in, and nothing but. For example: "'Heather is a fantasist. I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sun set in the West,' said one associate".--andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this associate qualified to determine whether or not Mills is a fantasist? That is a real mental disorder you realise? I would avoid calling her a fantasist unless someone in the medical profession has said so. I know your pissed off at the moment, but please don't reck the article you have built, take some time away from it and we can work on it together if needs be. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in an "In defence" section (to defend Mills) but both sides (with references, and only with references) will go in. A lot of people hate this woman (referenced) but the truth must be read here, so as to be the most complete article about her that is available on the web. I only started work on this article with the idea that it must be truly neutral, and if I wrote "Mills claims", then that is the truth, because "Mills said/stated/explained" is not good enough. Even though I personally can not stand the woman, I will do my best to see that every angle is covered. This is why I am here.

Mills is a very hot topic, and I expect some flak about this, but I must adhere to my own perspective, which is to write a balanced article, even though it's about someone I don't like. It's also a part of adding some more GAs for The Beatles' Project.

Don't feel offended, Realist2 (your intentions were honourable, as always) but Mills needs special attention. I didn't do my best on the first nomination, and I apologise, but now I will give it my best. I thank you. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mills: The Truth

Everything should, and will be, referenced.--andreasegde (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]