Wikipedia:Peer review/Susanna Hoffs/archive1

Susanna Hoffs

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I don't think it's quite ready for a GA nomination yet as I'm not sure it quite meets the Good Article Criteria. I'm generally happy with the range of sources used, but have concerns about a couple of them. Among the other issues, some of the quotes need to be shorter/summarised, and no doubt the article could do with a copyedit. I'd be interested to see what others think. Pinging Landplane123 and Binksternet follwoing our recent talk page discussions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In November 2022, Diogenes99 added the band ‎the Psychiatrists/the Unconscious, followed by Dano67 in March 2023 adding Hoffs' unreleased project in 2000. These two additions brought the article up to 30 kb in size. After that, BennyOnTheLoose put a bunch of work into the article, assisted here and there by others, bringing it up to 82 kb by July 2023.[1] This version of the article is pretty good, having a more fleshed-out lead section, a new section about guitars, and more detail everywhere. In August 2023, Landplane123 began expanding the article, relying rather too much on poor quality sourcing such as WP:MEDIUM.[2] At this point, too many hands were involved, and the article started suffering from redundancies and excess. The worst point was reached in December 2023 when the article held a nine-paragraph "Career" section which was redundant to the other sections describing her career in segments.[3] The size was 125 kb.

I find the current version[4] much better composed, with redundancies removed by BennyOnTheLoose. It clocks in around 108 kb. We have one remaining Medium/Cuepoint reference, an interview with Hoffs which we should discuss to determine whether it is reliable enough for the facts it supports. It's weird that the filmography table has bolding in the titles—the tables of music don't have the same bolding, and it makes the film section stick out and look wrong. Perhaps we can choose or assemble a table that doesn't automatically bold the film titles. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed ... the style inconsistencies are jarring. As a copy editor I usually address these but might have been more focused on adding factual content than my usual style improvements. Dano67 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet and Dano67 Thanks both for your comments. I'll do some more work on the article, and might put in a GOCE request before nominating it for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the point about bolded titles in the table, my understanding is that this complies with MOS:DTAB. See, for example Fatima_Whitbread#Television_and_radio from that featured article, or the comments at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Snooker_world_rankings_1978/1979/archive1#Accessibility_review_(MOS:DTAB). I think therefore that all the tables should be consistent, but with the bold. Let me know if i'm wrong!
Dano67, I'm interested in your comment that "might have been more focused on adding factual content" - what do you feel is lacking?
There might be an argument for the Medium article being acceptable as a WP:SPS but I think the best option is to look for an alternative or remove that material.

--

BennyOnTheLLoose, I was only referring to material I thought to add myself during my edits, such as filling in gaps in Susanna's recording & other activity during her solo career timeline; not necessarily material still to consider adding. Hope that makes sense.Dano67 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]