Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roseanne Barr/1

Roseanne Barr edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Credible shortcomings of the GA criteria were brought up in the discussion below and no true attempt has been made to fix them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this meets the WP:Good article criteria. Listing for community reassessment as the subject is going through backlash at the moment and multiple pairs of eyes can help determine whether the page can be salvaged and I'm not sure I could right now take this all on my own. Here's what I've found:

Prose: Probably my biggest concern. From a glance, there's way too many really short paragraphs that makes the text look rather choppy, multiple instances of stray periods coming after citations, the italics for the Roseanne's Nuts bit within the "Reality television, third book, sitcom pilot, politics, Comedy Central Roast, Roseanne revival" section are messed up (should have the show in italics and the rest without them), and this more than once uses contractions inappropriately outside of quotes and titles.
Referencing: I'm not sure if "TV by the Numbers", The Forward/The Jewish Daily Forward, "The Smoking Gun", "popculture.com", "solidarity-us.org", "The Laugh Button", Jewish Journal/The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, "Genealogy Magazine", "RealityTVWorld.com", Toronto Sun, or "TVLine" are good sources to use, but definitely would remove/replace Fox News (for contentious/political claims as their conservative bias often interferes with accuracy), Huffington Post (for anything political and/or contentious, their liberal lean also gets in the way of facts in this field) TMZ, The Christian Post, and New York Post. Dead links also need to be fixed. As a rule of thumb, each paragraph should end with at least one in-text citation, and use multiple references if needed to support all of a paragraph's content.
Coverage: Aside from one praise from Roger Ebert for She-Devil, this has no critical commentary of her performances. That is another major issue. There's also nothing on how she became interested in professional acting or stand-up comedy.
Neutrality: The "Controversies" section (which was titled "Controversy" at the time I conducted this assessment) is undue negative weight to be lumped all into one section. That's basically asking for trouble as it can easily be over-inflated. It would be better to disperse within "Career" or perhaps "Personal life".
Stability: While there have been major changes following the Roseanne season 10 premiere as well as resurfacing images of her dressing up like Hitler, there doesn't seem to be any content disputes right now or back-and-forth reverts.
Media: No copyright concerns with images, but it seems repetitive to use File:Roseanne barr.jpg within "career" while also having File:Roseanne barr (cropped).jpg in the infobox when they're both derived from the same thing. Can other images be found and used in place? File:Roseanne Barr at the 1992 Emmy Awards-cropped.jpg also doesn't give a clear view of her face.

Any other suggestions for improvement are also welcome. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please notify the active reviewers, nominator, wiki projects and any other major contributors when you put an article up for reassessment (although you don't need to notify the reviewer now since it was me). AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already notified WikiProjects, and user who first put this up for GAN has been indefinitely blocked while the one who helped out in its GAN hasn't edited since 2014, unlikely to come back anytime soon if ever at this point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment form original reviewer This has changed a lot since the review five years ago and not for the better. I too don't like the introduction of the controversies section as there is rarely any need to have one in a biography. I have to agree with Snuggums concerns, that in its current state it is a long way from being a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that edition was perfect even though much less information on her was available at that point, but it certainly was overall far better than what we have now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]