Talk:Judy Sheindlin/GA3
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
It's been 8.5 years since this article last underwent a GAR, and in that time it has become a functionally new article--one that no longer meets GA standards. What was once a concise bio has blown up with a lot of non-neutral content. I don't think it should be terribly controversial to take away GA status.
- Grammar isn't bad, but prose could be tightened considerably.
- There is a lot of unsourced content bordering on OR, or at least without sufficient independent sourcing. Sheindlin is quoted directly throughout. Half of the "Longevity" section is just a blockquote. Same for much of "Other media appearances". The "Writing" section could easily have been written by the publisher. Two-thirds of "Non-media projects" is either sourced to the organization it's about or cites her own comments. This article does not come off as being neutral at all.
- References are not up to standard, both in substance (TMZ, youtube videos, press releases, gossip sites) and format.
- There have been previous suggestions on the talk page that criticism has been scrubbed. Based on the links in that discussion and things like this, I'm not sure that the current article is covering her career sufficiently.
I really do not see this as meeting GA standards. Nole (chat·edits) 21:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nolelover, At a glance, the lead section does fall a bit short and/or needs further work. I think the career structure is a bit odd - eg. a sub-heading for retirement plans and salary - really? I think a biography of this nature needs to run chronologically. Too many short paragraphs, and of course, sourcing needs a closer look. It does need tweaking to meet GA criteria, but it's not overly far off. Just Lizzy(talk) 10:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments @Lizzy150: I largely agree with what you've pointed out, and if there's any place where I may think that the article is a little further from being up to GA standards, it's the issue with the inadequate sourcing and non-neutral language. I think multiple sections would need complete rewrites, etc. Nole (chat·edits) 16:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)