Talk:Traci Lords: Underneath It All/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 12:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a major issue with unsourced assertions and possibly not reliable sourcing regarding reaction within the adult film industry. Some of the sources (AdultFYI, for instance) seem sketchy for such assertions in a BLP, and other assertions are completely unsourced. Placing this review on hold to give nominator a chance to fix BLP sourcing issues. valereee (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a reference to the X-Rated Ambition: The Traci Lords Story (2003) documentary where people like Ron Jeremy or Peter North say they never saw her use drugs on set. --JAEVI (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I'm a little uncomfortable with the summary section, which seems to be sourced at the end of the paragraph -- is every sentence in that paragraph actually sourced from her book? It might be good to go through that paragraph and provide citations to the book for at least the most controversial statements. valereee (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Added reference with a citation from the Amazon page which has a summary of the book. The rest can be found in the book. I saw some GA articles with the summary section completely unsourced, so I wasn't sure. --JAEVI (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm marking this yes, but I'm going to ask another experienced reviewer to check my work on this. All but one source are mainstream, reliable sources. A single source is non-mainstream; it doesn't appear to be unreliable, simply not as reliable as would be ideal for a contentious statement in a BLP article. I've been trying to find a better source for that Christy Canyon comment but this is the only one I have. I would consider it a reliable source though. --JAEVI (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC) I've asked an experienced reviewer for input; they said they'd get over here as soon as they could, a little busy in real life right now. valereee (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• There are additional articles TRACI LORDS: Underneath It All (Book) By: Gold, Sarah F.; Chenoweth, Emily; Zaleski, Jeff. Publishers Weekly. 6/23/2003, Vol. 250 Issue 25, p60 and also an interview here and a mention here and here maclean (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Valereee: This review hasn't been edited since October, are you still looking for a second opinion? Wugapodes (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: yes, I'm still looking for the second opinion! My concern was with 2b and whether some of the sourcing for potentially contentious content in a BLP was reliable enough. valereee (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Second Opinion by Wugapodes

No source problems So I looked through all the sources and the only one I had a problem with was AdultFYI. I looked at the archived link and saw that it was an interview with the person the quote is from, on a website that posts (posted?) many interviews with adult actresses. While it's not mainstream, the site must have had some amount of reputation and reliability for good journalism within the adult film world given the number of people they got to do interviews with them. And since it is only used to source one statement which is a quote, I think that it's not problematic. So I think the sourcing is fine. Hope that helps! Wugapodes (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thanks so much! valereee (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)