Wikipedia:Peer review/Xiaxue/archive2

Xiaxue edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present for peer review, this short, but interesting, article about a Singaporean celebrity blogger! Please support my quest to counter systemic bias by pointing out any and all ways that this article falls short of the GA criteria. Hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thank you! 谢谢! Terima kasih! நன்றி! J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would first question if this is notable. That aside...the controversy section should be renamed or removed in line with BLP articles being npov. Also make sure the refs are consistent. I'm sure some of the refs without links can have them with a google search or something. other things to check for (I haven't read through it all) is ENGVAR consistency (Brit English in this case) and perhaps list it for copyedit at GOCE. (to get other input)Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

urther, while the refs are consistent, I would still suggest reflinks as that is more detailed.

I made some changes (as in the "controversy" section title) and tagged stuff and also added hidden notes. Try and answer them. This should be good for a GA then I reckon.Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still questions its notable with only local sources.Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local high profile newspapers are fine I think - I think she passes notability guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is not a local source. Although the rest of the sources are of Singaporean origin, she has won Best Asian Blog at the Bloggies and Wizbang Weblog Awards. The iPhone video controversy involved Daniel Lyons and Gizmodo, both based in the USA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you do straighforward stuff like put as much information in the references as possible - accessdates for web only - authors etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing All the web references already have access dates. Adding author information where available. For reference 1, the author is obviously Xiaxue herself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd describe her as a blogger, not "celebrity" blogger as that word means nothing really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done See my reply to Ruhrfisch. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fleshing out material in the blogs and other media sections would be good too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I have to stick to information that the sources provide. No point adding fluff, original research or worse, BLP violations. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

I think she is notable too.
I agree that "celebrity blogger" is confusing (and is not repeated in the article). Does it mean she blogs about celebrities? Does it mean she is a celebrity because of her blog (I think this is what is meant). If so, why not say something like "is a Singaporean known for her blog about her life, ..."
Done Decided to just remove "celebrity". From the second sentence of the lead, readers can infer that she is a celebrity. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS, at least her birth year should be in the lead (since birth date and year are in the article itself)
Question Is that section of the MoS one of the five that the GA criteria mentions? Where in the first sentence of the lead section (which mentions both her real name and pseudonym, in both English and Chinese) should it be placed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAGA says a GA has to follow WP:LEAD, which refers the reader to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies which says the lead should have the dates of birth and death if know - see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could add the birth year after her chinese name, but enclosed in the same bracket, i.e. (Chinese: xxx; born xxx) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the pointers! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some fairly basic things that should be in the article but are not. Most of them are about providing context to the reader
- Where was she born - assume part of Singapore, but the article does not say
  Clarification In Singapore, yes. Singapore is a tiny country. Most Singaporeans are born at Kandang Kerbau Hospital. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Then please add to the article that she was born in Singapore. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Added in Personal life section --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the name of her blog?
  Clarification Her blog does not have a specific name. Sources usually call it just "Xiaxue's blog" or "xiaxue.blogspot.com". The tagline "Everyone's reading it" is not its title, since she has changed the tagline before; past taglines include "Why are you worshipping the ground I blog on?" and "Chicken pie blogger". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Then have the article say her blog does not have a specific name or title, but does have different tag lines. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Partly done Changed her main blog to her untitled main blog (usually known as xiaxue.blogspot.com). Information about the taglines is difficult to verify, so I did not add it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole thing about her writing 10 blogs was not very clear to me.
  Question What do you not understand and how could I make it clearer? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  You yourself refer to her blog (singular) in your reply to my previous point. The section of the article is "Blog" (singular), not "Blogs". I went to her blog and did not see 9 other blog links. If nothing else, shouldn't all of the public blogs be linked in the EL section? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Partly done Changed section title from "Blog" to the more accurate "Blogging". Also changed the external link description from "Xiaxue's blog" to "Xiaxue's main blog". Did not add links to her other blogs as most are not notable and . --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What language(s) does she blog in? From her nickname, I assumed it might be written in Chinese, but the link I followed was to an English language blog.
  Question Where would be the best place to mention that her blog is in English? I considered Xiaxue...is a Singaporean English-language blogger but that does not read well to me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Nothing should be in the lead that is not in the article. I am not sure this belongs in the lead, but how about making the first sentences of the "Blog" section something like this to address this and the previous comment: Xiaxue blogs in English. In addition to her main blog, she also writes a geeky blog, her media centre and several private blogs.
  Done Since her pseudonym is a potential source of confusion, the sentence about the pseudonym would be the best place to clarify that she writes in English. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not a lot of dates / years. So when was she a "columnist for national newspapers TODAY and The New Paper, Maxim magazine and Snag magazine"? Were these one-time columns (guest columnist) or did she have regular writing assignments for these publications? Is it possible to reference the actual columns she wrote (and not just the story about them)?
  Clarification with question She had regular writing assignments for these publications, but referencing the actual columns does not seem feasible. The PDF source does mention the years where she was a columnist for these publications. How should I include such information in the article? Due to...notably as a columnist for national newspapers TODAY (2004) and The New Paper (2005), Maxim magazine (2005) and Snag magazine (2005) could be misread. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  The article cites lots of print sources, so I do not see why it couldn't cite some of her print blogs. These could be looked up in a library. I would imagine the first and last blog she wrote for each publication would be sufficent (and it may well be that these would give details that might be useful here - she might write in the first blog for a paper that she has been hired to write for a year, or she might say in the last one that she wrote 50 columns here in the past year (these are made up examples). How about something like Due to the popularity of her main blog, Xiaxue's work also appeared in mainstream media. She was a columnist in the national newspaper TODAY in 2004, and in 2005 wrote columns for The New Paper, and Maxim and Snag magazines.[5]
  Considering Newspaper articles are easy to find through Factiva. Magazine archives are much harder to obtain. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ref for this sentence In April 2008, she made a video about the iPhone, which she insists "was meant to be funny", but was dubbed "the worst iPhone review" by U.S. technology writer Daniel Lyons and ridiculed on other technology websites, including Gizmodo.[13] should include citations to Gizmodo and wherever Lyons made his remarks (not just a story in the New Paper)
Considering Online references can go dead quickly. I believe the Fake Steve Jobs blog was shut down after the real Steve passed away. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are talking about here. A fake blog does not sound like a WP:RS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification American technology magazine writer Daniel Lyons started a blog under the pseudonym "Fake Steve Jobs". His ridicule of Xiaxue's video was made through the Fake Steve Jobs blog. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems pretty short, though the article is not very long.
Clarification Lihaas had removed a sentence about her family from the lead section, making it look shorter than it should be. I have reverted his change. Is the lead still too short? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Noted As far as I know, there are no copyright violations or close paraphrasing in this article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]