Wikipedia

Talk:Sasha Grey/GA1

< Talk:Sasha Grey
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 84.46.52.41 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 19:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Major comments edit

  • Ian Cinnamon is only mentioned in passing under "Music" but it appears that Grey and Cinnamon were in a relationship for many years. They were engaged at one point ([1]) and Grey later filed a restraining order against him ([2]). Their relationship needs to be mentioned under "Personal life" and perhaps under "Career", and the reasons for the restraining order need to be discussed.
  • The "Acting" section needs more mention of critics, with some short quotes of their commentary if possible. For instance, the "Chelsea" paragraph says "Critics had mixed assessments of Grey's performance"—what were these assessments? Did they say her acting was good or that her character was interesting or that she didn't fit with the film's tone etc.
  • Did her books get any critical reviews? If so, add some of the reviewers' commentary. Also, can you add a brief synopsis of The Juliette Society? And is there any more description of Neü Sex that can be added?
  • The lead should cover all sections of the article e.g. mention her books.

Some unreliable sources:

  • For "Background", the sentence "Her parents divorced..." seems to be unsourced and Facebook (ref #15) works as a primary source but it would be better if a secondary source could be found.
  • IAFD (#35) is not necessarily a reliable source for biographies according to WikiProject Pornography. I'm also unsure how it sources the sentence: "CNBC noted that, while she is no longer acting in adult films, her current mainstream roles have kept interest in her earlier adult film work high, and several companies continue to release compilations of it."
  • #38 works as a primary source for the Facebook claim but it would be better to use a secondary source. (Side note: in "for some time after, realizing that many", is the comma supposed to go after "time"?)
  • IMDb (#77, #78) is not a reliable source.
  • MySpace (#87) is not a reliable source.
  • What makes Hellothemushroom (#111) a reliable source?
  • There's a "citation needed" tag under "Modeling".

Minor comments edit

  • The article says that her surname "represents Oscar Wilde's novel The Picture of Dorian Gray" but according to this source, it's also a reference to the Kinsey scale.
  • It's worth saying how many porn films Grey was in (295 according to [3]).
  • The Soderbergh quote in the "Chelsea" paragraph is too long and can the descriptions of Vivre sa vie and Pierrot le fou be made more succinct?
  • Why are the "Other awards" separate from the table above it? Also, that table should have less width for the column "Co-starring".
  • This source [4] could be useful. The fact she grew up Catholic belongs under "Personal life".
  • Does Grey refer to herself as a feminist? If so, it should be mentioned in the relevant part of "Personal life".
  • Rather than saying that her Equal Pay Day video was controversial, the aspects which were criticised/praised should be mentioned (with reference to reliable sources).

Nitpicking edit

  • "Grey states that her parents were not happy with her involvement in the adult industry, but that they are on good terms nonetheless"—This should be past tense with a date: "Grey stated in [year] that..."
  • "Grey formerly represented herself..."—When is formerly? Was this true of the whole time she was in the industry, and if not who represented her afterwards or before?
  • I've made some hopefully uncontroversial changes in this edit.

The article is in decent shape but still needs a fair bit of work. I'll look through it again if these issues start to be addressed. The article is now   On hold, so there needs to be some progress made in the next seven days or regretfully I'll have to fail it. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Striking issues that have been resolved. Note that relevant discussion has taken place at Talk:Sasha Grey#Review (permalink). I'm aiming to run through the article again tomorrow. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Okay so there have been a lot of changes to the article since the review had begun. Unfortunately, every time a change is made, it seems to introduce a new error. I've been fixing a lot of them (e.g. here, here, here) but the GA reviewer doesn't generally take such an active role. I'm going to list all the current concerns I have with the article. I'm going to return to the article in 3 days. And I will pass the review if the article meets the GA criteria and fail it otherwise. (If there are disagreements with any of my comments, note them on this page, with a line of the format ** [reason] ~~~~ placed underneath the bullet point you're responding to.) — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Batch 2 edit

  • "Her motto is "Lotta continua"." – Everything mentioned in the lead should be mentioned in the body. It's also not a significant enough fact to include in the lead.
  • "In 2010, in an interview with Maxim ..." – I think this belongs in the "Career" section. If we read the article from "Early life" to "Bibliography", it should all make sense, but we've not established yet in "Personal life" that Grey is an adult film actress.
  • "or "somewhere in between" homosexual and heterosexual based on the Kinsey scale" – Clunky wording.
    • #1 in Batch2. –84.46.53.4 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
      • I think the point is that the Kinsey scale was originally published as a gray-and-white chart ([5]) and that symbolised to Sasha Grey that sexuality is about "shades of grey". — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
        • WP:IAR×WP:OR is always fun, that wasn't obvious for me, no "white", "grey", or "black" in the text.  –84.46.52.41 (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • "it was taken out of context" – What context was it taken in?
  • Merge "In 2009, she was voted number #1..." into the previous paragraph and "According to the Miami New Times..." into the following one.
  • The section "Appearances" needs renaming – perhaps "Early media appearances" or "Media coverage"? Alternatively, the initial paragraphs about her porn career could be put under a level 3 heading "Pornographic acting" (or similar) and then "Appearances" could be made a level 4 heading called "Media appearances".
  • "In 2011, she was named by CNBC..." the first two sentences seem to fit better on the end of the last paragraph in the porn career section.
  • "Grey played the lead role..." – This sentence flows better if the clause "in Academy Award-winning director Steven Soderbergh's film The Girlfriend Experience" is moved to the start of the sentence.
  • The quote "She's kind of a new breed, I think" doesn't really add anything to the article or convey any important information.
  • There's still too much detail about Vivre sa vie and Pierrot le Fou.
  • "On Rotten Tomatoes the film got 66% based on 138 reviews." should be "On Rotten Tomatoes, the film received a rating of 66% based on 138 reviews."
  • "59% at Rotten Tomatoes" – based on how many reviews?
  • The Would You Rather link should point at Would You Rather (film).
  • For Entourage, I Melt With You, Shrouded Corpse Bathing While Hip-Shaking, Would You Rather, Saints Row, Durch die Nacht mit ... and China Test Girls, critical reception of Grey is needed where it exists. Critical reception of the works as a whole (e.g. RT scores) and very brief plot descriptions should be included if Grey's role was major.
  • "Previously, she appeared" – List that music video first.
  • In what ways did Grey contribute to aTelecine and other groups? Just vocals? Producer? Does she play any of the instruments or help with mixing?
  • "Since 2010 Grey regularly performed" should be "Since 2010, Grey has regularly performed"
  • Has there been any critical reception for music which Grey was a primary contributor to (e.g. to aTelecine)?
  • The Scott Indrisek quote is too long. Rephrase it so it's not just one big quote (e.g. "Indrisek noted that the book contains poetic surrealism.")
  • The relationship with Ian Cinnamon is still not described in enough detail. When did they get together? Weren't they engaged at some point? Describe the restraining order and Grey's reasoning behind it. This discussion does have consensus that the TMZ source is not good enough but the sources from Complex, The Daily Beast and Daily Dot together are reliable and significant. (Find more if you can and add them too.)
  • The Equal Pay Day video was described before as "controversial". Describe what that controversy was. Is there no critical reception of the video? (This is a rhetorical question; there is, as the Jezebel source is titled "Sasha Grey Sends Mixed Messages..." and contains lots of commentary.)
  • The last two paragraphs of "Activism" are not about activism; they belong under "Personal life".
  • Is there any more on Grey's political beliefs than that she supported Bernie Sanders?
  • The widths of the Award table are still very out of proportion (most egregious is "Co-winners", which is much too wide).
  • IMDb is still used as a source (but it's not reliable).
  • Ref #83 has an error.

Source spotchecks:

  • No issues found for ref #1(d), #11, #17, #47, #53, #70, #71, #73, #98, #121, #110, #135, #145
  • The link in ref #23 doesn't work for me.
  • Ref #38 says the Genesis issue was August 2008, but the article text says "In 2009".
  • What makes reneeruin.com (#59, #61) a reliable source? It looks like a copyright violation of the magazines whose images it takes.
  • Ref #80 doesn't describe Grey as "perfect". It says "she just seems perpetually bored, as was I". Ref #81 doesn't describe Grey as "perfect". It says Grey "perfectly conveys" something in one scene. Ref #82 doesn't describe Grey as "amazing". It says "... while I feel that this film is an amazing experience ..."
  • The video in ref #127 doesn't work for me.
Everything without pointer (number in #Batch2) here is fixed. Everything else is answered in #Batch2, notably #7 (do we want a not very interesting German review of the Durch die Nacht mit … episode in addition to the added Mary Ocher wikilink in #Series?), #13 (discussion with Begoon), and #18 (of 19, restored "mixed assessments" as better status-quo-antea with 2+1 (or 3+1) additional detailed reviews with a new review by Violet Blue.
I've copied the unanswered "TMZ and the restraining order" from the end of #Review to #TMZ and the restraining order (=#Sasha Grey on the BLP/Noticeboard; added engagement as noted above under #Batch 2.
Some new info and minor fixes unrelated to Batch 2 noted in #Casting and #Awards (16 instead of 15). –84.46.53.181 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Final comments edit

Unfortunately, the article still has sourcing issues. Something being used as a source in another Wikipedia article is not a reason to use it, as 90% of Wikipedia is crap. Certain unreliable sources are used in thousands of pages.

In "Acting", more detail about the critical reception to Grey's work is needed. This may also be needed for the "Music" section. Each Wikipedia article needs to stand alone. Reception sections existing in a linked-to page does not count. Content overlap is very much a feature of Wikipedia and not an issue, as long as the scope of each page is well-defined. Take Michelle Williams (actress) as an example of a page about an actor whose prose flows very well, and which includes an appropriate amount of detail on Williams' various roles. Of course this is a very different subject and there hasn't been as much coverage on Grey, but the style is still one to emulate.

The article still has too many quotes—these should be trimmed or rewritten wherever possible. MOS:QUOTE says "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". They're also often not that concise. Take the "Personal life" section quote: "I've been called one, and if I was one, I'd be a post-modern feminist". The "I've been called one" adds no information (the earlier sentences in the paragraph already cover this). It's better to write the sentence as ... Grey commented that she disliked the term "feminist", saying that she would be a "post-modern feminist" if she was one.

The lead also needs reworking to represent the body of the article with due proportion. It still contains fragments like "... examining her willingness to enter the world of hardcore porn at a young age"—this isn't brought up again in the body of the article.

There are also a couple of bits of the article that don't quite work. A list of 9 people following "Grey is a cineast" is not informative. Who are these people and what effect have they had on Grey? The list, if necessary, should be trimmed down to people Grey mentions in multiple interviews, and the people should be introduced (e.g. "American filmmaker David Lynch"). If she aims to emulate their styles, or they have a particular genre in common, this should be mentioned.

So with regret, I'm afraid I am   failing Sasha Grey for GA as it does not currently meet GA criteria #1, #2(b) and #3(a). Looking at FA- or GA-rated biographies on similar topics would be a good idea, and I recommend that once any content issues are addressed, the article could be listed at the GOCE for copyediting work. The article is substantial and has had a lot of work put into it, and I feel like (and hope) it has improved over the course of the review, but I'm afraid it's not quite up to GA standards yet. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sasha_Grey/GA1&oldid=889533558"