Talk:Karlie Kloss/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 08:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 23:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This has to be another quickfail. Nominator immediately renominated following the last QF claiming they had fixed the issues from the first GAN, but the lead is still far too short, and there are still uncited sentences, a failed veritication, and a "when" tag. Given that this was an active and recent GAN, the nominator should have been fixing these as soon as they were placed.

Further, there is more to critique that the original reviewer did not mention. The article is disorganized. Discussion of Kloss's general modelling style should be in its own section, but at present, sentences about this are randomly stuck into the timeline of her modelling career. Why is her entire career from 2011 to 2024 covered in one section? It should be split up somewhere. Did she stop modelling in 2018? Although other ventures are mentioned, there's nothing about her modelling since then. This is an issue with broadness. Her fairly famous friendship with Taylor Swift goes unmentioned - yes, the article says that Kloss appeared in Swift's videos and such, but not that they had any actual personal relationship.

There are also persistent issues with grammar and writing style. The article overall could use a copyedit. A few examples:

• "Kloss found herself in the middle of a legal dispute when Elite Model Management, believed they were responsible for launching her career sued Next Management for allegedly stealing her away by offering 'improper compensation' to sign." --> This is written in a gossipy infotainment style. One management company sued another - was Kloss "in the middle" of anything, really? And when did this dispute happen, anyway? It doesn't say. The sentence also has grammar issues.
• "after many speculations" --> more properly "after much speculation"
• stepping in Heidi Klum's shoes --> should be stepping into

Finally, I have removed a passage entirely taken from E Online just now (fortunately this was the sentence that had the "when" tag, so that has been resolved). I'm not sure if it was added by the nominator, but more care should be taken to ensure that nothing else in the article is copied.

Please take the time to resolve all of these issues before you renominate, especially any existing citation needed tags. If you need help with copyediting, I recommend asking the Guild of Copyeditors for assistance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.