Talk:Xiaxue/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I'll be taking this review.[reply]

Comments

Firstly I'd like to depart from the previous reviewer's combative style and say that this is overall an OK article. There is no need to go trough any other classes at all before applying for GA status. At the moment, however, the question is the difference is between an OK article and a "Good" one. The major problem is coverage, I think. It's not bad, and I appreciate the difficulties of an online personality, but we are missing some things in her life:

I think it would help if more of the article was bibliographical/chronological in order. Consider putting the "Personal life" section first, and merging some of "achievements" into it, specifically the parts about her past jobs. The parts about her current blogs can go under "blog".
This would make it easier to see that we are missing information about her previous jobs. You note that she worked for several noteworthy organizations. What were her roles (regular/occasional; what sort of column)? When she start and leave?
Infobox maybe?
How has the blog been described or critiqued in general? You note controversies, but what is the general reception?
Some more information needed for refs 8, 9 and 10 - at least an access/retrieval date. Consider using {{cite web}}.
The prose is good; will look over this again when the additions are made.
The image is fine. The caption seems slightly odd, I would expect both left and right to be labelled as such (even if using only one is technically clear!). I would say you had a strong case for a fair use screenshot of her blog, but this isn't compulsory.
On hold for seven days; this is only a guide. I don't fail articles where the work is in progress, so long as the end is in sight. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I have added retrieval dates for the four web references. Not using cite tags is a stylistic choice. Her other jobs are under the Achievements section because she earned these jobs due to her success as a blogger. In other words, these jobs reflect a blogger moving into more mainstream forms of media. Will go through my sources again to find and add more details about these jobs, as well as general critique of her blog. If I remember correctly, she worked as an event manager before she started blogging; will search my sources for more information about that. By the way, writing articles about American online personalities is easy (look at the "on Twitter" GANs); this is difficult to write because the online personality is from an island nation in Southeast Asia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say consider: my point was about the sort of information given in the reference to ensure verifiable; the mainstream templates may help as a prompt for that. I notice the layout and content has not yet been altered. It doesn't have to be like I suggest, of course, but I do think ground needs to be made up in this area. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still going through the sources and was waiting for your clarification before doing any actual changes, which would be made over the weekend. Could we agree that although the current organisation of content is fine, there should be more details about her jobs and general critique of her blog? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk)

Could the hold period be extended to the end of the month? I am still waiting for your confirmation, without which I would not know exactly what needs to be done. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is more information about her, rather than her blog, and a layout of the article that better reflects the distinction. At the moment the layout, where her blog spans three sections, but is mixed with biographical details, muddies the waters. A clearer structure and I think the lack of information would be clearer. (Also, don't worry about the hold.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blog section is about the origins and content of her blog, but how could I explain the origins without providing some biographical details for context? For the Achievements section, the first paragraph is about achievements of the blog, while the second focuses on achievements of the person (albeit derived from her success as a blogger). Perhaps this could be made clearer by rewording several sentences. Such a distinction is difficult to make in the Controversy section, since all the controversies (except for the accusations of abusing her position as a Tomorrow.sg editor) were caused by blog posts. In fact, I wonder whether such a distinction can be made for an online personality, whose blog is about her life and whose life is about her blog. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Well, as I say, there are two bits: content and layout. I'll see to the layout if you can provide the content, which I'm confident exists. Details about her life, where she lives, her previous jobs, age/birthday, that sort of thing. The article mentions she blogs about it, and I imagine there must be sources we can cite that have parroted it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian people and media are generally more respectful of the private lives of celebrities, so not much information has been "parroted" in reliable sources. Some details were intentionally excluded as too trivial (her favourite colour) or potentially BLP-violating (her birthday). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I'm looking to garner a second opinion specifically on the issue of 3(a): it addresses the main aspects of the topic (of course, other comments are always welcome). I'm away for a week, so this makes sense - I'll assess any comments/edits after, if a second opinion has been given. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in here. I don't think it meets the main aspects criterion. The article lacks basic details about the subject, including her birthdate. How old is she? What about an info box? The nominator has not responded to this issue. While this falls outside of 3(a), I'd also note that most of the references are not linked, which is frustrating for readers because it's impossible to judge the reliability of the sources without being able to read them. There are also some minor prose clarity and grammar issues, in my view, e.g. "Wanting to air her thoughts in a space that nobody can throw away" should be "could throw away" since the remainder of the sentence is in the past tense. And I'd echo the concern with sticking to a strict chronology within sections wherever possible. Also see WP:PLUSING for the last sentence of the lead, and try to rephrase.--Batard0 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for references to be available online to be considered reliable. In fact, offline sources, such as books and newspaper articles, are usually more reliable than websites. I have corrected the grammatical error that you pointed out and would appreciate if you pointed out more. Not including an infobox was a stylistic choice and there is no suitable infobox anyway; someone actually added Template:Infobox actor in the past! Be careful about encouraging the inclusion of information which may violate our biographies of living persons policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with offline sources, but if they're offline, we should really be saying page numbers. If not, courtesy links would be helpful where possible. Title, publication, date is nice, but authors, links and page numbers are also important. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that many of these articles are available online. Why are you so keen not to provide links? J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will recheck and add links for articles which are available online. All offline references were found through Factiva, which only includes author information for some articles (I can add them if necessary). Page numbers for newspaper articles; seriously? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the newspaper references are available online. You already linked reference 5, while I added links to references 12 and 18. However, I did not link reference 19 because the website seems neither reliable nor affiliated with the newspaper, thus it may be violating copyright. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly help to have some more information about her. I was also wondering how old she was. If you don't want to add an exact date (not a BLP violation if it is reliably published) then even a year would do. As far as 3a goes, you can only provide details that are reasonably available. If they are not then even if the article appears to be missing information it can still pass. I think it would help to move some of the Personal Info to the start of the body. It seemed weird to start straight into the blogging without properly introducing the person. An "Early Life" section, or even "Early Life and Blog" heading if that will be too short, would be better in my opinion. I also have a pet hate with stand alone controversy sections, much better integrating them into the articles other sections. They tend to lean into undue territory and are a magnet for POV edits. This one doesn't seem to bad, not fail worthy anyway, but it does take up about one third of the article, which could lead to BLP concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When would her blog be an acceptable source for information about her (assuming reliable sources have not "parroted" said information)? For example, she mentions her birthday on her FAQ page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say her blog is reliable for simple facts about herself. Treat it like any other primary source. For her birthday it is probably the most reliable source short of a birth certificate, she should know her own birthday. She has made the date quite clear there so I don't see anything wrong with us repeating it here. AIRcorn (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added her birthday, cited to her FAQ page, and examining potential further uses of her blog as a source, but I expect them to be very limited. I hope other GA reviewers agree with you, as I do not want the outcome of my nominations to depend on which reviewer I get. Perhaps the time has come to dig into Chinese references too. Where do we go from here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is reliable depends very much on what information they are supporting. Too many primary ones can lead to issues with notability so it is better to use secondary ones where possible. Chinese sources are fine too. They can be hard to verify for us reviewers, but you should not let that stop you if there are no English equivalents and they contain useful information. Putting a short translation in the footnote will help and a a certain amount of good faith can be assumed (i.e. if there are no problems with other sources then I would be more inclined to except foreign ones I can't properly verify). As far as this review goes the final decision on whether this meets the criteria will be made by Grandiose. AIRcorn (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for this to see if much came of it. I've reordered the article the way I suggested before (more or less) which highlights the her/her blog distinction. As I suspected, it does rather demonstrate how little the article covers her life. There are details there, but I don't believe they give us enough of a picture. The article mentions " TODAY and , Maxim magazine, Snag magazine and the "STOMP" Star Blog" but we don't get any more details. (Oh, and this has a different marriage date.) This might be useful. Also anything she's written would be an appropriate source for uncontroversial details about her life, and considering that the blog is at least in part about her, I still believe there is more to say; if there isn't, then perhaps this article would be better about the blog, mentioning her. There's only been one article (out of perhaps 30 biographies) that I've passed as a GA shorter than this, and that was about an Anglo-Saxon King where no sources continue to exist. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF reference is already in the article as reference 9, but I was not aware of the other reference, which was released after I nominated the article, so thanks for pointing it out. I would like to know what other reviews, especially Aircorn, think of your proposed reorganisation of the article. If I start using Chinese newspapers and her blog (with extreme discretion), then I can certainly add more information about her life. However, a short article can still be broad, especially when the subject is from an island nation in Southeast Asia. For example, see Yip Pin Xiu, a GA about a disabled Singaporean swimmer, also written by yours truly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the reorganisation. To me it makes more sense to discuss her life before getting into the blog. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you requested a second opinion, I thought I'd interject -- with a few comments:

The lede does not properly summarize the article. The first half of the "Life" section is not there at all. Her education and early life are not mentioned. The "Blogs" section, and its "Controversy" subsection, are covered just fine.

The article mentions that she obtained "a diploma" -- naming the specific degree would probably help here, though we can do without it if none of the sources give specifics.

"[B]itchy, provocative writing style" is in no way proper encyclopedic writing. Prefix a "what is perceived as" to it, and the situation would improve, but only just slightly.

Her "success has been attributed", by who? In cases where we're dealing with specific claims of opinion, those opinions need to be attributed inline, not just via citations. We have the same problem with the "outrageous antics" quote -- who describes said antics as outrageous?

All these words need to go: "geeky"; "rants" (in the first paragraph of the "Blogs" section); "haters"; and especially "offensive", in the lede.

Hope this helps. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I believe there is a clear consensus that the article currently does not meet the GA criteria. Thanks, reviewers, for clearly highlighting several issues and constructively indicating what should be done. Leaving the nomination on hold would create pressure to rush through improvements, so I would like to withdraw the nomination or have it failed. After going through Chinese sources and her blog, adding more information about her personal life and sending the article for a copyedit, I will renominate it, hoping that the next reviewer does not object to the use of Chinese sources.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to reply above. I can certainly withdraw/fail the review for you, although I would just say that you shouldn't be disheartened. If someone tells you non-English sources are not OK, ping me and I'll show them what's what. As for her blog, WP:SELFPUB gives details; stay within them and clearly that's fine. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support for using Chinese sources where appropriate too. Us reviewers aren't the be all and end all of Wikipedian knowledge and you should feel free to question any of them if you don't agree with a suggestion. Most good reviewers will listen to you and as Grandiose implies (I think), in the end if it follows our policies it is good enough to be Good. AIRcorn (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]