Talk:Charmaine Dragun/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Karanacs (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to place this on hold for 7 days to see if the article can be improved. Karanacs (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this doesn't meet 3b. It goes into a great deal of unnecessary detail.  Much of the Personal life section seems like trivia.  For example, how is the paragraph about her trip to Croatia really relevant? While it might have been covered in a newspaper account, that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  A lot of the rest of the article is similarly trivial.
 * The article seems weighted very heavily on her personal life, with little information about her career. Her career is what made her notable, and it should take prominence in an article about her life (with a smaller amount of space devoted to her personal life/death). *The image of her fails the Fair Use guidelines.  The template specifically states that a screenshot of a television program can only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents ".
 * The lead is not representative of the article.


 * Whilst her career may be notable her depression and suicide are more verifiable. I have made improvements (shortening the personal life section, replacing the photo and slightly increasing the lead), but even so more sources refer to her suicide than her career (typically only mentioning her career in passing). Sanguis Sanies (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a second opinion, I'd go further and state that I don't think the article's terribly comprehensive. There's a fair bit more that could be said about her career and her move to Sydney that's been reported; it's all given quite a brief treatment here. The lead isn't well written either: "Suffering from depression and anorexia from the age of 18, she would spend most of her life on antidepressants. On Friday 2 November 2007, Dragun committed suicide" is like something out of a "what not to write in a lead" page. Rebecca (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in my return. I appreciate the efforts you've taken to reduce some of the fluff in the article, but I don't think it's ready for GA yet. There are basic grammatical issues, the prose needs reworking (as Rebecca also mentioned), and there is still very little about her career, which should be what makes her notable. There is also still too much detail on some of the personal issues. I'm going to fail this for GA now. More detailed comments are below, and I encourage you to renominate it once you've gotten a good copyedit and fleshed out the career section. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose needs work. I copyedited the lead, but I see similar problems in the rest of the article.  There are sentences that are overly long, some with missing commas.  These sentences need to be rewritten or separated.
 * There are sentences where the clauses don't appear to match. For example, in "Dragun's mother stated that Charmaine had struggled with Anorexia shortly after her 18th birthday[8] after lewd comments about her figure were made by workers at a construction site,[1][3] followed by a drop in weight from 52 kg to 39 kg (115 lbs to 86 lbs)." the last clause seems to imply that the weight loss was a cause of the anorexia, not a symptom.
 * Example 2: "Although initially successful, within six weeks, Dragun’s parents had realised there was a problem" the first clause and the second seem to have nothing to do with each other.  Dragun's parents were initially successful?
 * There are unclear terms - perhaps because I'm familiar with American terminology and not Australian. court reporting in the US doesn't mean what I think this article is trying to say.
 * The body of the article does not provide the same level of explanation as the lead. In the career section, we aren't told what Ten is - the reader should not have to read the lead to understand the rest of the article.
 * The body appears often to choose the trivial over the more important details. For example, we're told that she was going to marry at her 30th birthday celebration, but not given a year reference at all (again, we're requiring the reader to look at the lead to understand)
 * There is still too much trivial detail. For example, about half of the depression section could go.