Wikipedia:Peer review/Xiaxue/archive1

Xiaxue

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this article about a highly successful, but also highly controversial, Singaporean celebrity blogger. In my quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia, I am seeking GA status for this article. Please point out any and all issues (such as prose or BLP issues) that prevent the article from meeting the GA criteria. I hope you enjoy reviewing this article as much as I enjoyed writing it (despite the scarcity of referenced information on Singaporean topics).

Thanks, J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

Be careful with how you write. Describing her as a "celebrity" blogger doesn't seem to ad much more than saying she is a blogger. Similarly, calling her awards "prestigious" runs afoul of WP:PEACOCK.
Partially done, clarification needed I described her as a celebrity blogger to assert and give context to her notability, since it is unusual for bloggers to be celebrities and her notability is as much as a celebrity as a blogger. Is there a better way of communicating that? As for the word "prestigious", perhaps I was too influenced by Singaporean culture, which places great emphasis on whether a school, award, etc. is prestigious; I have removed the word. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is she described as a celebrity blogger in any sources? That would be my main issue here. I personally feel that if she is on wikipedia she can be assumed to be notable. The phrase seems to be used a lot around wikipedia though, so it may not be an issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources do describe her as a celebrity blogger, so is that description fine? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be good per WP:LEAD if you could place that in the body somewhere, but if an external source backs this then it probably is fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the picture with Template:Infobox person.
Clarification needed Another editor added that image and, to be honest, I think the article could do without it. I generally avoid unneeded use of complicated templates in my GAs and I doubt an infobox would be useful, since few of the fields would be relevant for her, a blogger. (Someone added Template:Infobox actor, which I removed, as she is not an actor!) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always liked biography infoboxes due to their quick information on birth date, nationality, etc. Of course, some of this is in the lead, and it's up to your discretion. Anyway, some images are useful, images being criteria 6 of WP:WIAGA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "but" in the last sentence of the lead doesn't seem to make sense.
Clarification needed Perhaps you could explain why and suggest a better word? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two statements included together in this sentence do not seem immediately related, and the word but implies a contradiction which I do not see. I would actually suggest simply splitting the sentence, and quickly expand on why she is controversial. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Split the sentence into two and added a brief elaboration of why she is controversial. Perhaps you could recheck the prose of the lead section? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section now a good summary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was her paper diary thrown out?
Not done Sources do not mention exactly when, except that it was during a Chinese New Year spring cleaning. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this first sentence of the blog section related to the last sentence in that section? If so they should be placed together.
Done albeit differently After some consideration, I have merged the last sentence into the second sentence, where it seems to fit better. Perhaps the explanation of her pseudonym could be placed within brackets to improve flow? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience brackets usually aren't the best ways to improve flow, although it could work. If you can find out why she named it Xiaxue, I'd actually recommend making it a new sentence placed after the one it is currently in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, if only I could find out why she chose that pseudonym! Sadly, I cannot, so I am leaving the sentence as it is. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason for specifying the nasty taxi drivers as a topic?
It was an example used in the source. I included it to give readers a better idea of what issues she rants about, which also reveals more about Singaporean culture. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking done then. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title "achievements" for a section is quite vague. When I think of achievements, I think of awards, but only one of the sentences there fits that. I would remove this section, merging the first paragraph with the Blog section and the second with the Personal Life section.
Considering I need to give this further thought. Her sponsorships and appearances in other media were achieved due to her blogging. Perhaps I could have a "Beyond blogging" section with two subsections for "Other media/achievements" and "Personal life"?

If you wish to do that, I'm sure it would be fine.` Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed After further consideration, I realised that the section title "Achievements" may seem vague simply because what constitutes an achievement varies from field to field. For a blogger, achievements would include awards, sponsorship deals and appearances in other media, while for a chess player, tournament victories and titles are important, but contributions to the theory of an opening or endgame may be even more significant. The Achievements and Controversy sections balance each other; I am concerned that splitting the Achievements section may make the article look less NPOV. Do you still think I should split the section and if so, do you have any additional reasons? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered the balance between sections. If as you say an achievement for a blogger is appearing in other media (I'm not a blogging expert), then perhaps make both achievements and controversy subsections of the Blog section? That would make it obvious it's achievements due to her blog, rather than anything else. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "She has been involved in a few other incidents." It's redundant and unnecessary.
Done I thought topic sentences need not have references, as they are used to link paragraphs? Listing all incidents in chronological order does not seem to make sense, because the controversies arising from posts she made are quite different from the other two (the hacking, which was not her fault, and the allegations of impersonation). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't always need to, but this topic sentence didn't give a difference. It just said that there were other incidents, which is blatantly obvious to anyone reading the text. It reads much better to simply start discussing the next incident, especially as it is in a section where incidents are already known to be the topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any controversy about her appearance on other shows?
Not to my knowledge. The sources did not mention any such controversies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life section should be expanded.
Doing Rereading my references to find more information about her personal life, but I must be careful to avoid BLP violations in my expansion. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the information there sourced to decent sources, which is an important part of BLP. At the moment the article suffers from it's small size. Most of the references are offline, but if you have access to them make sure you get all the information you can out of them. I'd advise including more controversies and possibly the dates of the controversies. Dates for when she worked on other shows/columns would also be very useful. See if you can obtain more information about her life, even if from her own blogs. A two line personal life section isn't that great. Also, see if you can contact Xiaxue and ask her to release her images under a free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details. More images would vastly improve the article. Perhaps a better one of her, maybe one of her and her husband, and a screenshot of one of her blogs? That would be very useful. Thanks for trying to develop articles about people not from the western world, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]