Talk:Dana Delany/GA1

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

A disclaimer: Actually I've done a lot of editing of this article in the past, but I've seen a large amount of recent edits being done, which might fail the Stability requirement as mentioned in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations (even if not specifically a result of an edit war).

A lot of these edits, though copious in information and probably accurate, don't seem fit the standards that I understand to be applicable to Wiki articles, or fitting the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, mainly relating to keeping it to Broad Coverage. A lot of quotes and individual remarks have been added, that seem excessive and bring in some POV concerns as well, making it read more like a magazine article than an encyclopedic one.

This article may need some clean up before being passed. x (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A disclaimer: I've done considerable editing recently on the Dana Delany article, but wanted to add my two cents. I kind of agree that the article has become somewhat long, but I think this could be solved by better organization -- perhaps a paragraph or two summarizing the major events of her theatrical career, specifically the China Beach stuff and the Desperate Housewives stuff, like near the top (under the first paragraph). Or maybe an expanded first paragraph? I think most readers would only be interested in these two things (ie CB and DH). But, for the few readers who are interested in more detailed information, I recommend keeping the critics' comments in, although perhaps the list of films and projects she's worked on could be shortened. The filmography (I think) is great -- I combined stuff from numerous sites as well as put new stuff in, and meticulously checked this over. I bet Wikipedia has the MOST AUTHORITATIVE FILMOGRAPHY of DD and this will help Wikipedia's reputation I hope (although I'll try to keep it updated as DD does new stuff.) I hunted extensively for both positive and negative criticism of her work -- the only negative stuff I found was a blogger's comment that DD was lousy in something (and blogger = flaky source as you know); in addition, critic Terrence Rafferty once described one of her performances as "uninteresting", but I didn't know what that meant, and didn't know how to include it. DD is a talented actress who rarely screws up a role -- if you hunt through the web for negative stuff, it's very hard to find. Many of the films she was in sucked -- I put that info in, too, like when a film got mixed to negative reviews (Housesitter was lackluster in my personal opinion too). And my personal opinion was that she sucked in some TV role I saw her in (casting problem probably) and I can't remember the name of the show -- it was in the early 90s I think -- but that's my personal opinion, not printable. My biggest problem with the DD article so far is that the pictures are boring -- just DD accepting awards like at Emmys -- I'd like to see pictures of DD starring in actual productions -- but even though I tried writing and phoning her agents, requesting better pictures, nothing seems to happen about getting better pictures. My personal bias is to include more pictures since I think too much text is a turnoff. And, I don't think the "voice talent" stuff is that important, but there are users who relate to this stuff, and I don't want to get into an edit war with them about this detail. But generally I'm going to only watch the DD page and not do anything major for a long while since I'm doing stuff on BMC Software and Statistics New Zealand and other stuff I know nothing about. Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This GA review seems to be orphaned, and a bit old (GA reviews should not take longer than 2-3 weeks). To sum the article up against the six GA criteria, I don't think this passes at the present time. Here's the summary:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead section is too short and doesn't summarize the article. The prose is choppy in parts, and needs a good copyedit.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most of the sources seem to be reliable, but the citation format needs work and doesn't comply with WP:CITE. For citations linked as URLs, the date of retrieval needs to be included in the citation. I didn't really check for WP:OR issues too much, but I am concerned that some of the fancruft in the article could, in fact, be original research.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Probably complete, if not a bit overdone. Some sections could probably be trimmed of excess fat.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Parts of the text seem to be written more from the point of view of an avid fan, and should be rewritten more neutrally.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There don't appear to be any major edit wars going on.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The images are all tagged and captioned appropriately.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article does not meet the GA criteria in its current state. It can be renominated once it meets the criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that people have worked hard to try to fix the article, and rate it for GA status. And I've been thinking about this somewhat as a past contributor. And, while some of the criticisms are perhaps accurate (eg needs trimming, prose somewhat choppy) basically I think the article, as is, is basically a good article, and can be improved somewhat, but not much. And, I think, given the material here, that we're basically doing a fairly good job. I disagree that the LEDE or LEAD section needs to be more than a few sentences -- I like short lead paragraphs which make it possible for people to quickly get the idea of what the article is about; short LEADS let them decide quickly whether to read further; and as a writer, I disagree on principle with Wikipedia's preference for longer LEAD paragraphs. About the story: well, I think there are basically FOUR stories here, possibly FIVE, which are interesting. (1) DD is an EXCELLENT HIGH-CALIBER actress who rarely, if ever screws up a role, who can play nuanced roles with subtlety and grace -- critics bear this out and I think all of the critical commentary should stay in to make this point; I couldn't find ANY negative criticism of her performances from a reputable critic -- and she works CONSISTENTLY with no long breaks (2) DD swings from playing mass-appeal stuff (where there's more $ and fame but more mundane scripts) and high-concept tough scripts with good writing but which rarely click with the mass public; and her career is a shift between these two. And occasionally where she shines the best is where she finds a tough role in a mass media TV show like China Beach or Desperate Housewives -- China Beach, in particular, was so well written but it was constantly having ratings problems (3) DD has trouble sometimes picking scripts (a difficult task for any actor), most notably, initially turning down the Desperate Housewives role (and getting a second break) (4) her focus on ACTING not celebrity is consistent -- she doesn't pull stunts to get attention, like weird marriages or outlandish statements or numbskull celebrity antics like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton and such; she's not a "star" but a serious hardworking actor (5) her best friend sharon monsky dying of scleroderma -- this story could be expanded somehow, since DD and SM acted in the movie about Scleroderma, and expanding this could be interesting. But, like if I was an editor, I'd think that focusing on those four or five core stories will improve this article; last, I think in the article itself, listing so many movies, like DD was in this, DD was in that, -- that kind of stuff could be trimmed since it's available in the thorough filmography. And, my overall thought is this: to hell with GA reviews; I think editors should focus on writing the article that WE THINK is best, that WE THINK best captures the essence of this story, and throw out any checklists in the trash. My thoughts at this point; I'd help but I'm working on other stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)