Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Alex Pettyfer/1

Alex Pettyfer edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist. Good advice on rewriting the article can be found below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this article was promoted a long time ago and there isn't a way of accessing the review. The prose doesn't flow very well as there are many short paragraphs in the career section. A few of the references are also missing information and I've added "citation needed" in some places. Spiderone 12:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article fails to meet Criterion 1. Portions of the article are stubby; for example, "Family background" is too short to stand alone as a section and should be combined with "Personal life". The prose suffers from disjointed one-sentence paragraphs. Additionally, several of the references aren't correctly formatted. Fortunately, one can correct these problems with a small amount of effort.

The article meets Criterion 2b requirements for in-line citations. While it is always worthwhile to further improve an article's citations, the Good Article Criteria doesn't require a citation for every statement. Rather, it says that the article should have in-line references for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons".

I contend that a statement such as His most recent modelling jobs were ad campaigns for Burberry in 2008 and 2009 does not require an in-line citation to meet GA criterion because it isn't a controversial statement, counter-intuitive, an opinion etc. Majoreditor (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general, although it should be possible for the reader to find essentially all of the article's material in the sources used (per 2a), be it cited inline or not. In this particular example "most recent" is problematic: without a source this is (admittedly extremely minor) OR, but also it will soon be out of date, so a cite would help not only with 2b, but also with 1a and 2c. Alternatively, the sentence could be rephrased. Geometry guy 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "Most recent" is a strong phrase to use; I have changed it to "Recent". Majoreditor (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. A collection of facts which are not put together in a readable form. Some of the facts are disputed, and some are trivial. This is not an article, this is a set of notes to prepare an article, and it hasn't yet been decided which notes to use. This is particularly trivial: "Pettyfer has seven tattoos, including a Celtic cross on his chest, Arabic script on the inside of his right arm, the words, "What Goes Around Comes Around" on his right shoulder, the letters "ER" inside interlinking hearts on his right wrist and a Kanji script on his lower waist" such detail is more suited to a fan magazine than an encyclopedia. SilkTork *^YES! 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Per Silktork. The career section in particular needs a rewrite. It currently reads as a collection of facts, often presented in single sentence paragraphs, with no narrative pulling them together. A career section for an actor should be more than a proseline list of jobs, as we are already given a filmography etc.Yob Mod 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per my earlier comments on the prose. I see few signs of improvement. Majoreditor (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]