Talk:Karen McDougal/Archive 1

Career highlights
Certain aspect of McDougal's career remained unconfirmed and no support is available: WWF developement contract in 2000 Several wrestling websites and others (including Askmen.com) reported that McDougal signed a developement contract in 2000. However, there was no official announcement from WWF (now WWE) or McDougal available online or otherwise. There was insufficient evidence to include it in the article.
 * In her April 4, 2002 Playboy Cyberclub chat, McDougal has denied association with WWE, then WWF. See article for link to chat transcript. 65.213.44.9 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal life
McDougal apparently has maintained a private personal life and several unconfirmed items have been circulating the web: Marriage Several fan forums indicated that McDougal got married in 2002 and may have subsequently divorced. However, there is no proof of that from any website or articles. She has not acknowledged or denied ever being married either. There are no pictures of her and her alleged husband available. There was a rumor suggesting her husband was Jenna Jameson's brother, however again without proof. There is not enough support to indicate that she was or is married, hence it is not addressed in the article. Lexington Steele While there are many forums (mainly XXX forums) that alleged McDougal had a relationship with Steele at one point, it remains as a rumor and speculation. There is no proof from any parties involved from any press articles or pictures on the web or otherwise to support or deny such claim (the forum participants in those discussions appeared to also raised such concern). As a result, it is not addressed in the article.
 * Failed WP:RS, should not be included. 65.213.44.9 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed this item keeps coming back, but it failed WP:RS and should not be included. 65.213.44.9 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

aka Karen Long?
There is no verifiable info online that supports her birth name was Karen Long? Is there? 65.213.44.9 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments: To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Please note as well that I have not checked the references yet, which I will be doing after all of the above concerns have been addressed. The article also has a few small MOS problems (a few references inside, rather than outside the punctuation, for example), but I will clean these up with a copy edit myself if the above concerns are addressed. Cheers, CP 08:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone. In this case, they disrupt the flow of the article significantly, making it read like a series of facts rather than the prose of an encyclopedic article. This is especially marked in the "Personal life" section, which reads like a borderline trivia section.
 * ✅ I think. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I sort of tweaked the personal paragraph a little bit more. Hopefully making it a little tighter. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The image in the infobox needs a caption to put it into context. When and where was this picture taken?
 * 2) I count six fair use images in this article, which is far too many for a biography of a living person, especially one where a free image is already available (in the infobox). The only fair use rationale that I completely buy is the Playboy cover, and even that one is questionable since there's a free picture available (though I do understand the "pinnacle of career" idea) Image:Karen with Karen doll.jpg has to go, as it serves no unreproducible purpose beyond illustrating the subject of the article (there's no reason to use fair use when someone could easily just take their own photograph of the doll; Karen McDougal does not need to be holding it). I also don't see why Image:Karen PMatPlay 07-2005.jpg is needed, as it really isn't doing much aside from illustrating an arbitrary aspect of her career and, with so many other images in the article, I don't really see a good reason to upload this particular fair use one. Image:Karen sideway split.jpg seems excessive as well. Being able to do the splits, while impressive, is not notable enough in general to merit a fair use rationale in an article that already has a large number. I'm also fairly skeptical on Image:Karen Arena2001.JPG; let's be realistic, she's known for modeling, not for acting, so I don't see a reason why this picture qualifies for fair use BUT I am open to being proved wrong. The other three have to go though, if this is to become a good article. Image:XFL commercial.jpg, while displaying an unreproducible event, makes me wonder whether or not it's so important to have this fair use of a shot where you can kinda see her in the background of a commercial; unlike the Playboy cover, it's not a pinnacle of achievement BUT I am open to this one being defended as well.
 * ✅ "I personally believe the Playboy Cover and the XFL commercial cap should stay as the cover is her "pinnacle of career" and XFL commercial is still her only mainstream TV commercial appearance and most controversial work to date. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)" (copied from User talk:AnonEMouse)
 * If it's good enough for AnonEMouse, it's good enough for me. Obviously AnonEMouse has more than a little work under their belt for images. Cheers, CP 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Early life and education" jumps around in number styles (four years, 2 years). One style (and this applies to the whole article) needs to be chosen per WP:MOS.
 * 2) "Playboy has continued to publish her material in Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Special Edition publications and Playboy Videos on different occasions based on her work at this time." (Playboy) requires a citation.
 * 3) "While all Playmates appeared in bikinis in the calendar, McDougal and Hiromi Oshima were the only two Playmates actually wearing only painted on bikinis." (Post-Playboy) requires a citation. Also, I think that the wikilink for "painted on" doesn't go where you want it to go.
 * Er ... while I hate to disagree with the esteemed IP editor who wrote most of this great article, it's still not cited, so I don't think it's done yet. I looked for a citation on the Web and couldn't find it (except in copies of Wikipedia). This sentence doesn't seem to that much of a linchpin for the article, since she has clearly appeared both in and out of bikinis many times; maybe we could just remove it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooops, You two are both correct! I missed the citation part and I think this sentence may go as it was more of a trivia that she wasn't exactly wearing a swimsuit in the calendar. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, well, a little bit. I have referenced the sentence to the calendar. Anybody who has seen the calendar will arrive at the same conclusion. Will that work? Sort of like summarizing a book after reading it? 76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Having an "Early life" and a "Personal life" section is a bit awkward. I suggest either merging the two or renaming the second one to something that emphasizes that it focuses on her personal life after her early life ("Later life" makes her sound like a war veteran, but hopefully you get what I'm getting at if I suggest that)
 * Ah, I recognize this, word for word, from a completely different GA review. :-) It seems to be a matter of style, and used often throughout the Wikipedia, in some of our most respected articles. Do you have any specific suggestions? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I might have used that somewhere else. Can't for the life of me remember where though. As with Glover, I'll think about it and, if I can't come up with anything better, won't hold it against a GA pass. Cheers, CP 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, well, a little bit. I have referenced the sentence to the calendar. Anybody who has seen the calendar will arrive at the same conclusion. Will that work? Sort of like summarizing a book after reading it? 76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Having an "Early life" and a "Personal life" section is a bit awkward. I suggest either merging the two or renaming the second one to something that emphasizes that it focuses on her personal life after her early life ("Later life" makes her sound like a war veteran, but hopefully you get what I'm getting at if I suggest that)
 * Ah, I recognize this, word for word, from a completely different GA review. :-) It seems to be a matter of style, and used often throughout the Wikipedia, in some of our most respected articles. Do you have any specific suggestions? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I might have used that somewhere else. Can't for the life of me remember where though. As with Glover, I'll think about it and, if I can't come up with anything better, won't hold it against a GA pass. Cheers, CP 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Part 2

 * 1) There are still one-two sentence paragraphs that chop up the prose, including the lead, the last paragraph of "Playboy" and the last paragraph of "Personal life"
 * Fixed the lead, but couldn't find a good way to expand or combine the last two. I hope they're not killers. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just tack them to the end of the preceeding paragraphs? It disrupts the flow far less than having them floating in the ether. Normally I wouldn't be this picky, by the way, but since Ref #26 needs to be fixed anyway... =D Cheers, CP 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tucked those 2 lines into the preceding paragraphs. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I forgot to comment on the lead in my first review; I don't think it quite conforms to WP:LEAD or, at the very least, conforms to the bare minimum. I'm a bit worried that it doesn't quite summarize all the important parts of the article, especially for an article of this size. There's a lack in the Early and Personal life sections, but I think the career part of the lead could be fleshed out a bit as well. I think overall it's too general, whereas the lead should allow the reader to walk away with a good, if not detailed, overview of the subject of the article, which I don't feel that it does at the moment.
 * 2) Wikipedia is not censored. As the footnotes are intended to link directly to the content that they cite, please link directly to the mature content (with a warning if you'd like) rather than asking the reader to guess where the cite lies among the external links (unless there's a specific policy against this and, if so, please point it out to me).
 * I'm not sure what this is in reference to. Can you be specific as to what footnote reference doesn't link directly to content? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blinks* I swear I made a point of including the reference number. Sorry about that, I meant #26. Cheers, CP 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I may be in a better position to address this comment, pls give me some time. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Split the references into 3 separate ones, #26, 27 & 43 with mature content warning included. 76.199.65.126 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I question how much Youtube can be used a source, especially when the fact could be cited with IMDB, but it's likely a copyright violation to do so. (Ref #34)
 * Reformatted the press release using 76.199.65.126 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) External link #1 is redundant to Reference #3 and should be removed. Same with External link #2 and Reference #12.
 * ✅ #2; #1 disagree, I'm afraid - it's is her official personal site, important to emphasize as a separate external link, even if we do use parts as a reference. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) External link #1 is redundant to Reference #3 and should be removed. Same with External link #2 and Reference #12.
 * ✅ #2; #1 disagree, I'm afraid - it's is her official personal site, important to emphasize as a separate external link, even if we do use parts as a reference. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold is ongoing. Cheers, CP 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great, so I will be passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)