Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 08:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The three images are suitably licensed, one non-free and two free.
- The O'Brien photo caption should say when it was taken, not try to summarize the whole article.
"cheesy poop bimbo" should be "cheesy pop bimbo"- I fixed this. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Say, why is it that quotes from the book are being selected by Wikipedia editors and not taken from secondary sources who have quoted the book?
- Review to continue. Binksternet (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can see by searching the archives of People magazine's website that there was never an article called "Meeting the Woman behind She-Bop" and that there was never an article written by Christina Jansen who is at any rate a photographer, not a writer. Can you help me figure out why I cannot find any online trace of this reference? It is a serious flaw in the article if it cannot be found. The reference, such as it is, backs up huge portions of the article.
- After looking through the cited book reviews, my take on them is that the book is not satisfying to any reader. I would not say that the book received "mixed" reviews, I would say that it received primarily negative reviews, with some good points mentioned.
- This seems redundant to me: "the over-emphasis given on the singer's discography was unnecessary". It could be trimmed to "there was too much emphasis on the singer's discography".
- The further reading section is about Madonna, not about the topic. The topic is the book! I think the further reading section should be cut.
- Too many sentences are cited to the book itself rather than to secondary sources.
- Throughout the article are poorly constructed sentences. It needs a firm hand at grammar, that is, after the major problems of sourcing are addressed.
- I am placing the article on hold for improvements. The improvements will have to be substantial. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am failing this GAN for inaction, no response to answer critical points. The most problematic point was the unverifiable Christine Jansen source, so I removed the source and all related text. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)