Talk:Brenda Song/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

GA Review Process

Please do not remove the {{fact}} tags I have been adding as part of the GA review process. These indicate statments I feel will need a reference in order to pass GA, as one of the criteria does involve good referencing. It will be much more difficult for me to indicate where references are needed when the article is placed on hold if the tags are removed! Million_Moments (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies! I can now see that the information that was tagged has been removed as well. At first glance when I returned to the article it looked only as if the tags had been removed. Million_Moments (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War?

This article is taking me awhile to review due to it's length and high levels of activity. I'm seeing a bit of an edit war going on here over ethnicity, which has a section on the talk page. I should mention I am concerned about the stability of the article. Million_Moments (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Request

I am seeking a second opinion on this article as part of the GA process. I am specifically asking for help on assessing the stability of the article, though comments on my other thoughts below are of course welcome. The following are changes that I feel need to be made to the article: -

{{fact}} tags have been placed where a reference is needed.
The career section is confusing. On three occasions, a role of Songs is called the one that made her a teen idol: Stuck in the Suburbs, The Suite life and Wendy Wu. Wendy Wu is called her breakout preformance, why is this? And is there a reference anywhere calling her a "teen idol". I feel the section could benefit from not mentioning some of Songs less notable rolls (as these are in the filmography anyway) and an exapansion on her more notable roles, perhaps wth comments from critics on her preformance.
In the body of the text it says she won the Asian Excellence Award but in the table it says she was only nominated.
Since she was in 5 episodes of Thunder Alley this seems more than just a guest appearance.

If you have any questions, please ask me here or on my talk page. Another reviewer will add their opinion shortly. Million_Moments (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the current {{fact}} tags seem unnecessary. That she appeared on the cover of a named magazine is essentially self-citing. The same goes for saying she did X on episode Y of series Z, if it's a simple description of events. But those can be removed. The other two fact tags are in the paragraph on endorsements; that paragraph can be removed too. Fixed most of the other concerns: the text said she "won an Asian Excellence Award nomination" (switched to earned), and the table had the episode counts switched. Gimmetrow 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was more for the "13 hottest stars to watch". Million_Moments (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Million_Moments, have your concerns been addressed? (It is hard to tell from the edit summaries all that has gone on.)
The edit war appears to be caused by various vandals and subsequent reversions by various editors and therefore not instability caused by editors working on the article.
I think there is no justification for the fair use of Image:Brenda-song-escord-ad.jpg, as there are three other images in the article. IMO, this image should be removed.
The prose is choppy with too many short sentences. The section Personal life and public image is almost a list because of the many short sentences. Throughout the article, paragraphs need to be combined and the flow of the writing improved.
Consideration should be given to combining some of the sections. For example, under Acting there are five sections. The editor of the article needs to combine subjects some so the prose is allowed to flow. Now the article is practically in outline form.
Per MOS:LINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking, there is some over wikilinking. Words such as breast cancer, community college and homemakes, for example, do not need linking.

This is per GA criteria that a GAN follow certain standards, one of them being "with appropriate use of wikilinks". (See the editing guidelines Reviewing good articles.)

It seems like there is no reference for "Song helped co-produced the film." under Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior (2006–2007)
The references need checking. For example, http://www.dylan-sprouse.org/ goes to a useless page. Some references do not have publisher or access date. For example, refs 29,33, 36.
I am not sure if the attorney's quotation is correct, as in the cited article it is not presented as one block. Therefore, it is not clear if it is one continuous quote or patched together from different quotes. A solution would be to reduce the quote and interweave it with article text as this issue cannot be resolved by looking at the reference source.

Per GAN editing guideline that quotations be correct. (See the editing guidelines Reviewing good articles.)

I would like to see these issues addressed for a GA pass. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail

Mattise has reinterated my concerns about the career section that haven't really been addressed, but put it in a different way. I agree that it should be more concise, split down into one or two sections along the lines of other GA articles for actors (For example Keira Knightly. I've only really seen expansion of the career section, and not the edititng down I also asked for. The edit war is now over, at the time it was between two editors but one seems to have backed down now. I'm inclined to disagree about tje escrot add, I think it does meet NFC criteria, perhaps a discussion is needed about it to reach a consensus. This article would appear to need significant restructuring, and because of this I feel I will have to fail the article. Once these concerns have been addressed, it can be renominated for GA status. If you feel this review is incorrect, you can appeal at good article reassessment. If you have any questions please feel free to contact the reviewers, I will continue to watch this page. Thankyou for all your hard work so far, and good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What editing did you ask for that wasn't done? Gimmetrow 12:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above I felt the expansion of the notable roles was addressed but the article was still plagued by containing far to much information about her more minor roles which made the career section long and confusing. Million_Moments (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]