Talk:Rachel Bilson/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
In the "Early life" section alone today, I've found voluminous violations: uncited personal claims about living people, numerous statements that the cited sources simply did not support — blatantly so, with nothing even remotely resembling some of the claims — dead links that needed replacement with archival links, and more.

Among some of the edit summaries I gave:

"mother's names were unsourced"
"we can't make claims about divorces, remarriages, etc. without citations: WP:BLP vios"
"replaced dead link with original-source link, and the source material does not mention a girlfriend or a truck"
"cited source says nothing about piano"
"cited source didn't say ANY of the removed content"

Additionally, for the one edit I made in the much, much longer Career section

"ComicBookMovie.com is disallowed as a non-WP:RS of user-generated content"

On its face, this makes a mockery of what can be considered a Good Article. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the lead needs work, there are numerous unreliable sources, dead links. All in all, it needs a good makeover and is not at GA status right now. Tenebrae, looks like you've waited a while to get a comment lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Concur with LADY LOTUS. The lead could be expanded another graf to give a fuller idea of her career. Dead / misdirecting links still plague the article. I've just spent hours bring Early life and Personal life up to encyclopedic standards, removing claims based on anonymous, unsourced claims by shadowy "sources" — i.e., rumors. The career part is hardly organized in a way that presents GA status, with a second graf fannishly devoted to "hottie" awards — which are then repeated in the Filmography, so they're also redundant and should be either in the Filmography or in a separate Awards and accolades section, but not in two places, just one. There's an uncited redlink claim in her TV filmography, plus numerous style inconsistencies in the citing, and very few archive links. If Good Articles are supposed to be examples of some of the best models from which Wikipedians can draw, this fails to reach that high standard. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since issues remain and it is well past time to bring this over-two-years-old reassessment to a close, I have, with Tenebrae's concurrence on my talk page, just notified the four WikiProjects of this reassessment. We plan to allow the usual seven days for there to be significant progress toward addressing the issues noted by Tenebrae above; if there is none, then the reassessment will be closed. If good progress is being made, we will naturally extend the time, as the goal here, as with all reassessments, is for the article to be brought back up to meet the GA criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: filmography no refs. 333 -blue 12:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing reassessment[edit]

As there have been no edits to address the issues raised in this reassessment in the past seven days, and per Tenebrae's earlier concurrrence, I am closing this reassessment as delisted. If any editors wish to address these issues, they can then renominate the article for Good Article status at WP:GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]