Talk:Heather Mills/GA2

GA Review

In progress. MSGJ 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I started it and didn't have time to finish. Will be completed in the next day or two. MSGJ 11:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour? I have to fly from Austria to England tomorrow for a wedding, and I won't be back until next Wednesday. This would mean that I can only reply to your review when I get back. Could you you give me a bit more time than the usual week to respond?--andreasegde (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. MSGJ 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Review

Okay here we go. These comments are intended to be constructive and not to be taken personally :) There may be more coming later; these are my initial comments.

1. Writing style
   • Semicolons appear to be used incorrectly in the first few paragraphs. In many cases a comma would seem to be the best choice. For example, "In 1993, Mills was knocked down by a police motorbike and suffered serious injuries; losing her left leg 6 inches below the knee."

     Changed.--andreasegde (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Throughout the article the name "Mills" is used perhaps too repeatedly where, in many instances the pronoun "she" would make the article flow better, especially if the previous sentence has just used her name. Example: "Mills worked for a croissant shop, but was sacked, and vowed "never to work for anyone else again". Mills later wrote that the owner of a jewellery shop in Clapham gave her a job on Saturdays, ..." Similarly, some instances of Mills' could be replaced simply by her.

     Cleaned. --andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   • There are many instances in the article where a claim by Mills was contradicted by the facts. There are many such sentences of the form

     In 1986, Mills did XXXX, although she later claimed YYY.

   • Two examples: "Although Mills proposed to Karmal, she later said that every man she has been out with "has asked me to marry him within a week." and "At the age of 15, Mills claims that she ran away to join a funfair, saying she then lived in a cardboard box under Waterloo Station for four months, although Stapely denies this, saying ...". Although Mills's frequent economical use of the truth is important and must be mentioned in the article, for me this frequent contradiction interrupted the flow of the article. I think it might be more effective to
     1. Just present the facts in the sections on her early life
     2. Include a section about her lying, possibly in the criticism section, where the main verifiable fibs can be presented. (Don't need to bother with all the minor ones, we get the idea.)

        I have cleaned as much as I can, but if all the refutations were put in the Media image and criticism section, it would overload it and look like a witch hunt. :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

        I have taken out all the "claimed".--andreasegde (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Minor suggestions:
     • Wikify model agency.

       Done. --andreasegde (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     • "Mills is a ..." repeated in two consecutive sentences in third paragraph.

       Done. --andreasegde (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     • "... which Guy said were worth £20,000" - *was worth £20,000.

       Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     • "Karmal bought Mills a new clothes".

       Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     • "As her leg was taking too long to heal, ..." - a subjective sentence.

       Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     • "Unfortunately, Croatian citizens were already supplied with prosthetic limbs ..." It's fortunate for them! Consider changing it to "However ..." to be more neutral.

       Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     • The possessive Mills's is preferred to Mills' as she is singular not plural!

       I have changed them, but a name is often changed to "Mills' name", as with Elvis' biography.--andreasegde (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

       I'm not convinced. But I'm not 100% sure. MSGJ 14:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate
   • The article is very well referenced.
   • The only occasion that I thought a source was missing was for the sentence "Mills falsely claimed that she had a driving licence, and three A-levels."

     Changed to, "Mills also told Karmal that she had a driving licence, and three A-levels", and took out Karmal's "raining" statement.--andreasegde (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

     I wasn't saying that sentence was biased or non-neutral. I just wanted it referenced, which I see is now done. MSGJ 14:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad coverage
   • I was looking for a few more details on Alfie Karmal. It doesn't mention his profession, for example. It does say "... Karmal moved into the computer business, ..." Which computer business??

     Changed it to "Karmal moved into the computer industry", because that's all it says in The Guardian article.--andreasegde (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

   • Apart from that, very good.
4. Neutral
   • I believe a very good job has been done to stay neutral in this article.
   • As mentioned above, perhaps slightly undue weight has been placed on the various lies. This would be better placed together in a section rather than sprinkled thoughout the whole article.
     • I think the current "sprinkling" pattern is for the better. If all the "lies" were put together in a section, it would amount to a "controversies" section, something Jimbo himself strongly disapproves of. Secondly, negative info shouldn't be presented in a coatrack. I'm not going to get into whether or not there are too many of these "lies" presented in the article. But, at least in terms of their presentation in the article, the editor has done a good job. — Realist² 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

       If refutations of Mills's statements were put into another section, it would be confusing, as one would have to scan up and down the article. All Mills's claims and the refutations are inextricably linked, IMO, although I will clean them as much as I can.--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

       I can go along with that (although the "Jimbo says" argument holds little water!). But I still think that at the time I read it there were too many contradictions/refutations for the article to flow smoothly. MSGJ 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

5. Article stable
   • No problems here
6. Images
   • A good selection of images which enhance the article.

I'm putting this article on hold for a while until I have finished considering the article and the nominator is back from holiday. MSGJ 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-reviewing now. MSGJ 14:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-review

Semicolons: I found Mills often shows people her prosthetic leg; once taking it off during an interview on the American talk show Larry King Live, in 2002 which is incorrect. Also, why does the title say amputees and not amputations?

Because she helped amputees in Croatia. As she is not a doctor, she has never carried out an amputation.--andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Mills repetition: better but still too much unnecessary repetition in my opinion. "Mills" can be replaced by "she" if her name already appears in the setence immediately before. Just a minor point though.

Lies/refutations: flows much more smoothly now.

I am listing this as a good article. Well done and please continue to improve it :) MSGJ 14:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I thank thee kindly.--andreasegde (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)