Talk:Ashlee Simpson/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):

Dear lord, what a horrible, horrible person. Of course that wouldn't matter if the article was any good, but unfortunately it is almost as bad as its subject.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are ten dead links that I've marked off using Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS. Large sections are also unreferenced, a big no-no in WP:BLPs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Instances of fluffy and unencyclopaedic prose, see below

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Far from stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   his is just about the only area where the article doesn't fail; the head shot is really good quality.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The lead too short to fully summarise the article. There should be at least one paragraph on her biography, and one on her music, style, reception etc.
• "her parents then stepped in and got her the help she needed to overcome the issue" - this sounds like something from a Lifetime movie; it should be rewritten in prose fitting for an encyclopaedia.
• "Debut album and reality television (2004)":

• Suddenly we're using "Simpson-Wentz"? MOS:BIO says: "A woman, like all other biographical entrants, should be referred to by her most common name, and that would not necessarily involve using her husband's surname." Out of a random sample of 100 people, would more than one or two know that her name is now Simpson-Wentz? In any case, it's utterly absurd to use it for the period before she even got married, if you want to use it for the time after that, fine, but before that she's either "Ashlee" or "Simpson".

• "Saturday Night Live incident":

• This incident is given undue weight; it should be mentioned, but not to this extent. The section is also full of "in popular culture"-like information (could we please have one Wikipedia article without "Family Guy"), it has bad formatting in the sense that the paragraphs are too short, and the sourcing is poor.

• "Film, second album, and theater (2005–2006)":

• Here there's a mix of "Simpson" and "Simpson-Wentz", which is inconsistent.

• "Film, second album, and theater (2005–2006)":

• "He ranted to the press" - "ranted" is not an encyclopaedic word.
• "rave reviews" - ditto

• "Bittersweet World and Return to Acting (2007–2009)":

• This section is too choppy, with too many short paragraphs.
• "She said that it would have a more "soulful" sound and more emphasis on beats than guitars." this is essentially a quote without a reference.
• "She intends to go on tour" surely that's either happened or not by now.
• Again a mix of Simpson-Wentz and Simpson.
• "appeared alongside her husband" he hasn't been introduced yet (apart from in the lead).

• "Voice"

• You'd think the section on the subject's voice would be important in an article about a...singer? Yet here we have only a couple of lines, which is only a fraction of the information given on trivia and rumours.

• "Image and personal life"

• Here we have the best example of all the trivia and rumours. I don't need to know about all of her tattoos.
• "rumors suggested that Simpson did not like..." oh come on!
• "said that...she has "a little crush on Christian Slater", feels sexiest in bed, and that you can and can't have a good relationship without amazing sex" ditto

• "Marriage":

• Again too much rumours and hearsay, they married, they had a baby, that's it.

• "Criticism"

• Separate "Criticism" sections are normally discouraged (see Wikipedia:Criticism).

All in all it makes me sad that this is a GA, but in all fairness, most of the crap was added after it passed. I don't see how anyone can save this article in a week, but I'll give it the normal courtesy period. After that, if it's not up to GA standards, it will be delisted promptly. Lampman (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. I will also give it a C-class rating rather than B; this amount of unsubstantial and unsubstantiated material in a WP:BLP is unacceptable. Lampman (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)