Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 17

Any jail?
I'm confused. The article says she pleaded not-guilty, then later no contest. Was sentenced to 120 days, but is serving 14-35 in "house arrest"? Has she spent even a second in prison for stealing a $2500 necklace??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.10.128 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should probably be edited to make it clearer. The felony theft was reduced to a misdemeanor in part because the necklace was deemed to not be worth $2500 after all, so it no longer fell under grand theft.
 * Re: her sentence, I don't know if you have been following what's going on with the California prison system, but her getting house arrest rather than actual jailtime has probably as much to do with that as anything. They were considering letting a whole bunch of non-violent offenders go just because the prisons are that overcrowded, even if they hadn't finished their sentences. So with a non-violent misdemeanor it's not surprising that Lohan got house arrest. They also pointed out that if she had opted for jailtime instead it probably would have been for a much shorter duration (again, due to the overcrowding.) I hope that clears it up some. Siawase (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a bold reduction of the necklage theft segment.(diff) I summarized and trimmed back details, primarily to address undue weight concerns, as discussed in the article structure section above, but hopefully the trim and copy edit also makes the events clearer. I also included the jail overcrowding, which was not mentioned previously. Siawase (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Did she really "launch a second career in pop music"?
Back when she was really popular, a record company put out a couple of generic pop albums with her name on them. That's fairly standard practice for cashing in on someone's celebrity. She's never given a concert or toured, or even sung live apart from a few television appearances to promote those albums. William Shatner has a better claim to being called a professional singer than she does. She's just an actress.99.92.152.55 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. keep it off of here :D And she has sung live. Just because they dont tour doesnt mean theyre not an artist. Quit being jealous of her monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.112.197.20 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And you just sound like some blind fan. I agree with the original comment. Colt .55 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, does anyone have a suggestion for another brief wording that conveys the same substance? ie that her foray into pop music constituted a branching off from her main career of acting. For reference, the full current wording currently is: "Lohan launched a second career in pop music in 2004 with the album..." off the top of my head I can think of "Lohan branched out to pop music in 2004 with the album..." but that is rather clunky. Siawase (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lohan was also featured on two pop music albums, Speak (2004) and A Little More Personal (2005)."  That sums up her entire music career to date, and doesn't give the erroneous impression that she was a regular concert performer or that she's continued releasing records.  108.71.192.78 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So....Playboy
News today from various sources is that she's agreed to $750k-$1m to pose nude for Playboy. Never having added this sort of news to an article (I tend to stick to TV/movie pages and the like) I'm having a hard time figuring out how to write such an addition tactfully. Additionally, is it new- or sub-section worthy, or just something we put under the 2010- Present section of the article? DigiFluid (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth of a new section at all. If anything it'd go under the 2010- Present section. Until she actually dose the shoot or confirms the agreement I don't think it should be added because until then it's just speculation. Ryvenn (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and all, there's no reason for us to rush here. If it's ever actually done and published we can include it, but until then we can wait. Also, including something like this "tactfully" shouldn't be a problem as long as we have high quality sources (look at the way her topless Monroe shoot is covered in the article.) And if we don't have high quality sources it shouldn't be included. Siawase (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given her less-than-reliable career in recent years, I suppose I'd agree that it's worth holding off on adding until the shoot actually happens and/or is published. That said, I inquired about the creation of a new section only really because it's a step outside of her career thus far.  Child actor, actress as an adult, product modeling, art modeling and now apparently modeling for a men's adult magazine.  I can see both sides of the coin here so I'm not really invested in either position.  I just thought it was maybe worth considering. DigiFluid (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though it's different from her career thus-far, it'd still be considered part of her life, right? If she does become a Playmate (as a career) I'm not sure how we'd integrate that into the article: it'd probably be worthy of a new section then, but I'll have to look around at a few other articles before I can give you a solid opinion. When/if credible sources appear, I think it'd be best to put it in the 2010 section until further information about whether posing will be a regular thing for her becomes available. It's definitely worth considering and I hope it didn't seem like I was shooting down your idea, as that's not what I meant to do. Ryvenn (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The way the article is structured now none of her individual activities get separate sections, but everything is organized chronologically. I would strongly suggest keeping this structure as is, to keep material in context and avoid undue weight issues. See previous discussions: And she has previously done a lot of modelling, including sexually suggestive shoots and various states of undress, so Playboy wouldn't be a huge game changer. It can be incorporated the same way as all the other modelling material. Again, look at the Monroe shoot coverage in the 2008 section. Siawase (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to keep repeating yourself, I said I wasn't married to the idea, just wondering about it. On another note, this is no longer rumour.  It's been confirmed by numerous news outlets, as well as by the Lindsay Lohan camp.  According to a number of news sources, the photo shoot finished up today.  It might be worth a brief mention in the article now that she's done the work, with a follow-up edit later on when it's either published or blocked from being published if she turns her lawyers on Playboy. DigiFluid (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The only source I can find who says they confirmed anything is X17, who say they talked to Dina Lohan. Not normally a source I'd jump to use in a blp. Playboy and Lohan's official rep are both doing a "no comment." One E!Online source said the shoot would be "non-nude" and "One source told Reuters the deal was not yet final" The other coverage I'm finding is either repeats of the above or "according to TMZ" which is definitely a source to be avoided, even if other outlets repeat their stories. Siawase (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not going to find this on BBC, or CNN, or other REAL news sources. It's celebrity news and most reputable news outlets have done away with entertainment news.  Partially out of news agency respectability, partially because they can't compete with the big entertainment/celebrity news sites out there--including TMZ and the like.  These sites report on what most of us consider 'fluff' news, but they DO report on it so there's no reason to dismiss them out of hand.


 * But to continue on the topic at hand, you can find the news about this at most 'entertainment-oriented' news sites anyway. Heck, Lohan was even granted a delay in her recent prison sentencing so that she can finish the photo shoot.   DigiFluid (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BBC and CNN covered Lohan yesterday. But they did not mention anything about Playboy, which is a pretty strong indication that neither should we, yet.
 * "Lohan was even granted a delay in her recent prison sentencing so that she can finish the photo shoot." Again, this originates with TMZ, who say they have an unnamed source. A very different sourcing situation from if say, the judge or Lohan's lawyer had acknowledged officially. Siawase (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mainstream media has finally caught up with what's been generally known for two weeks now. http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/showbiz/lindsay-lohan-playboy/?hpt=hp_c3 DigiFluid (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to the CNN story above, ABC News and New York Daily News have also covered the story. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And Reuters. Both Lindsey Lohan's and Playboy's spokes people have confirmed this.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added it to the article now that it has been confirmed by both Playboy and Lohan's rep. Also added a bit from Hugh Hefner where he describes the shoot.
 * DigiFluid: it's not that the mainstream media "caught up", but that Lohan's rep and Playboy confirmed it officially, and highly reliable sources reported on that. It's the difference between speculation/rumor and confirmed fact. Siawase (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011
In the last sentence of the section "2010-present", "in first issue" should be changed to "in the first issue".

Telrod (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for a new picture?
The current one is from 2007. And while in most peoples' cases that tends to not be very long, Lohan seems to be living a rather harder life than most. That, and she's been a blonde for quite some time now. If there's a free picture out there somewhere, it might be time to put up something more recent. DigiFluid (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one has been able to find a free picture. Maybe it's time to create an FAQ on this as it keeps coming up: Siawase (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that now. After spending most of a day at work on Wikipedia, apparently I had tunnel vision and didn't see the archives lol DigiFluid (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be great actually! When I went looking for links to put together an FAQ, I ended up finding a recent free image. From all I can find, it actually is free and not flickr washed. Here: File:Lindsay Lohan at Cynthia Rowley.jpg. She's wearing sunglasses but I'm guessing no one will object to using this image in the infobox? Siawase (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucky find! Works for me. DigiFluid (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated the infobox image. No one at commons seems to have found any issues with the image copyright, so hopefully my assessment was correct. Siawase (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never thought of myself as prude, but does the sunglass photo (@Rowley) show a little too much up her skirt to be appropriate?71.38.136.150 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't even notice that. I just did a quick crop to remove the rest of the audience, but I wouldn't mind cropping the image back further to just her face and upper body. It would make it more of a portrait picture too, which would be appropriate for the infobox anyway. Siawase (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An image with sunglasses covering up most of the subject's face is actually not very encyclopedic. And replacing an appropriate image simply because it's from 2007, which was certainly more relevant cinematically than now, is not a good reason in and other itself. Mostly, though, big sunglasses hiding doesn't do the job the image is supposed to be doing, which is to provide a recognizable, encyclopedic image as a reference tool.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't feel strongly either way here. From previous talk page discussions and edits to the article (attempts to add more recent images that turned out to be non-free) consensus seemed to be strongly in favor or a more recent image in the infobox. But if consensus is that the sunglasses are problematic enough that this image should not be used in the infobox, I have no objections to moving it down. The last section is sorely lacking in images so it would be of use there too. Siawase (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds eminently reasonable &mdash; as do you yourself. It's nice to work with collegial and open-minded colleagues! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a regular user, but would a photo of her Playboy cover be notable? I've seen others with equally notable covers on their pages as well, I believe. Or perhaps a screen shot from one of her films? The photos on here do not exactly show her in the best light. We have known her as a decent looking redhead (that should be noted in a picture I believe) at some points in her life. Or just a decent angled photo in general. There's not really a photo on here that portrays her with the look we mostly associate her with so it would be nice to distinguish her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.86.145 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I moved your post up since we were already discussing new pictures in this section, I hope you don't mind. If you read above, the problem is finding a free image. The criteria for non-free material and how it can be used on Wikipedia are strict, and Playboy or her movies don't really qualify. The best bet would probably be to find an appropriate image, contacting the copyright holder and convince them to release the image under a free license. Siawase (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. On a side note, would paparazzi shots or personal Lindsay photos by chance be a free image? Would they really have copyright holders? talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.43.59 (talk)
 * The copyright of a photograph is owned by the photographer, absent some special circumstances. So, it's possible, for example, that the copyright of a photo by a paparazzi might belong to the publication the paparazzi works for. Regardless, it would only be a "free" image if it were clearly licensed accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, copyright in almost all countries is automatic, even for personal photographs, so the copyright holder must always actively re-license or relinquish the copyright to make free re-use possible. Siawase (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New format
Hey, I propose a new format for this page, i created a new format, in which things are put in differnt sections, i belive everything flows for clearly, in simpler, but less confusinh Lindsay Lohan, please let me know what you thing, and make any suggestions, If(i)Were 03:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's easier to understand! 68.7.253.104 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See previous discussion on some of the problems with redoing the structure topically rather than chronologically: Your sandbox version suffers from many of the same issues, in particular the inherent WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues with breaking out sections like "Legal issues".
 * But actually reading your version, it seems you have removed huge chunks of the article. Just at a quick skim, it seems you simply erased most mention of where her personal life disrupted her professional life, which is highly questionable both with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The way you present the material it looks like she has a career, she has some personal issues, and the two never really affected each other at all. That's not the way reliable sources portray it.
 * I also question the NPOV of putting some car accidents, charity work and political work under an "Image" header. And why is the New York and Playboy modelling under "Image" rather than in a modelling/fashion career section? (Seems you also just erased all of her other modelling work too?) Siawase (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would disagree, it looks like this current page, is a news room, rather than a biography, film work is missing, lindsay lohan is known for her acting career and her legal issues, my article is simpler and more clearer, as well as WP:NPOV, regarding her image, her protrayel of marlyn monroe is aprt of her image. the current article also just includes quoations of other people. lastly, we should leave the descion of a new format to either be supported or not (something you can't control) If(i)Were 20:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifiwere (talk • contribs)


 * What film work is missing from the current article? Siawase (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support the new article as implemented by Ifiwere. It doesn't address Siawase's concerns, particuarly about the impact of her drug/legal/criminal issues on her career. It is also sloppy. Other than when Ifiwere cut and pasted parts from the old article, the new article has spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors. It also has errors of style (incorrect capitalization of headers, for example). I realize that many of those errors can be corrected, but it's annoying to have to go in and clean up another editor's work when that editor is the cause of the problem. In any event, I am going to revert, and Ifiwere should not reimplement the changes without first obtaining a consensus for the radical reorganization of the material and the changes to the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's Ok, it was a propose page, Please don't insult my work! it is a work in progress. my page is simpler and can find information rather thank looking through four many paragraphs of mess, and i don't have to meet [User talk:Siawase|talk]]) concerns, :)If(i)Were 22:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifiwere (talk • contribs)
 * No one is insulting your work, but we are critiquing it, which is normal. The best thing to do is to learn from it, not to become upset about it. And in this kind of situation, if you want your work to be used, you do have to address any editor's legitimate concerns.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You forgot about Donnie Darko. Linsday Lohan played a starring role in Donnie Darko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.80.201 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Awards
User:Ifiwere wants to remove the awards from the column in the filmography table. He has been reverted twice by two different editors (I'm one). Generally, awards are either listed in a separate table or in the filmography table. Thus, it's not uncommon for the awards to be listed in this way. What was slightly unorthodox was there was a separate awards section with a hatnote to the Lohan awards article, so I eliminated that section and moved the hatnote to the filmography section.

To me, the only issue at this point is whether we need the awards in the Lohan article and in the awards article. Usually, a hatnote is used because you have a little bit in the current article but it's more complete in the linked article. I don't think that's what's happening here. I think editors are trying to keep both articles complete, although the formatting of the awards article is nicer. Also, awards don't lend themselves to this sort of treatment - summary in one article and completeness in another - because what awards would you include as a summary? Just wins or what? It'd be a bit odd and not self-evident to the reader.

So, I suppose I'm leaning toward Ifiwere's position, but before making any changes, I'd like to hear what others think.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through the history of edits related to Lohan's awards.
 * 14 December 2009‎ List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan created a multitude of editors has expanded this list since it was created.
 * 26 December 2009 first attempt at adding a bulleted plaintext list of awards to the article (this re-appears in various formats during early 2010 but always ended up removed)
 * 28 December 2009 I post a suggestion on talk to include the awards in the existing filmography table instead. No replies. This is the only discussion I can find about awards in this article.
 * 1 September 2010 List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan is linked from Lindsay Lohan (notice this took almost a year after the list creation)
 * 14 May 2011 an editor adds the currently existing awards to the filmography table.
 * 21 November 2011 Another editor expands this with a few addition awards this is the only addition I can find
 * 21 November 2011 Another editor expands this with a few addition awards this is the only addition I can find


 * Most noteworthy I guess is there has been basically no collaboration in the editing between the separate List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan and the lists that were included in Lindsay Lohan. I think that explains why the list article was also listed in a separate section. There has also never been any real consensus forming discussion about this.


 * I would like it if we could have the most weighty awards listed in the filmography table. They give a quick at a glance idea to readers which of her films were the most critically/artistically successful. The seperate list article is fine, but is listed in order of awards, not films, and does not fill the quick overview function. Also, much fewer editors are likely to click through to that list compared to the ones who would look at the filmography in this article.


 * I don't think making an editorial judgment on which awards are the most weighty would be too difficult. There is already a pre-existing wider consensus if you look at which awards have been considered notable enough to have categories and navigation templates (Category:Film award winners, Category:Film award templates). (The Golden Raspberry Awards for example were deemed too light-weight to have either.)


 * I can however see that there are some reasonable arguments against the inclusion, so I'm not adamant about it. It might also be worth to mention that some awards (hopefully the most weighty) are also mentioned in the prose. This is also the only place they are properly sourced.


 * Also, before wholesale reinstating Ifiwere's edit I think we should also have a discussion about the "herself" credits he added in the same edit. This has been discussed previously with only vague consensus outcome. Might be best to create a separate section for that discussion though. Siawase (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

film

 * this includes all Lohan's credits as well as all films, also awards/nominations have there own page for a reason! and that's why each film has it's own page, duh!

my decsion to edit the film page does NOT need to be approved or be discussed because it meets guidelines, sorry you can't control that ;) If(i)Were 23:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concepts of how Wikipedia works are remarkably wrong. What that means is that even if you have a worthwhile contribution, some editors (me, for example) aren't going to want to listen to you. Siawase may be more patient with you than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ifiwere, have you looked at Wikipedia core policies and guidelines? To give you some pointers on how they apply here: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Try to Assume good faith. We're all here trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if we have different views on how to do that. And since this is an open encyclopedia, no one can control what edits you choose to do, but likewise, you can't control what edits other people choose to do either. But edit warring to try to strong arm your preferred version into the article isn't allowed. You need to find consensus for the edits you want to make. In an article like this, it's usually easy to satisfy the core content policy of verifiability, because reliable sources are plentiful. But sources are so plentiful that we have to exclude the vast majority of material they cover, which is why the central issue here becomes not giving undue weight to any aspect of Lohan's life. This is part of Neutral point of view, another core content policy. You assertion that you can edit the filmography as you wish because your edits will always "meets guidelines" is actually false, because depending on what you include on exclude, it might give undue weight to different aspect of her work. Siawase (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what was wrong with the header? (it included her success, personal life, accomplishments, music and fashion all in a neutral point of view. the filmography section, is being reverted withou merit. (it included all credited film roles). It seems that no one can edit without first being aproveed by Siawase or User:Bbb23. (something in which editors of wikipedia should not follow or allow) I am trying to contribute to this page and make it better, but it's been difficult with both of you; how about except of reverting without looking through, you better changes made or edit them (working together), again just making this page (and other pages) simpler, better, reliable and effective! - Thanks... Ifiwere (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The root problem of your edits to the lead is that they don't follow the Lead section guidelines, most crucially the lead should only contain a summary of what is already in the article, with the most careful eye possible towards accurate weighting. You introduced several interpretations of events that are are not found in the main prose, which runs into original research and verification problems. (Example: "Lohan gained further fame with ... Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" "which earned Lohan recognition as a Teen idol." "two driving under the influence (DUI) incidents, leading to numerous visitis to rehabilations facilities from 2007 to 2010") You run into undue weight by including things like Sevin Nyne in the lead. I do think it might be a good idea to include something regarding her branching out in 2008-2009, and the lead could stand to be a little bit longer in general, but Sevin Nyne is pretty much a blip on the radar even in that context.


 * Re: your edits "being reverted withou merit" and "reverting without looking through" both me and Bbb23 have written lengthy, detailed, policy based explanations about the problems with your edits. And we are trying to collaborate here. I mentioned above that I think we should discuss the "herself" credits before including them. I really do think that some "herself" credits might carry enough weight to be included in the filmography, and if we hash it out we may be able to find consensus on where to draw the line in the sand on it. In other words this was an invitation to collaboration and further discussion, but your only reaction was to post a revised version of the credits excluding most of the "herself" credits without further explanation. It's difficult to collaborate when you won't engage in a discussion of things like these.


 * Look, you haven't done anything wrong here, Wikipedia encourages being bold and just hopping in ignoring all rules to improve the encyclopedia. But the point is that being bold and ignoring all rules is encouraged exactly because other more experienced editors will jump in and revert your edits if they turn out to be problematic. In many cases Wikipedia articles are of such low quality (ie, the history of many articles is a variety of editors addding whatever tidbits they know on the subject in a haphazard fashion) that an inexperienced editor can make drastic improvements by just using common sense in restructuring and copy-editing the material. But a high profile, high quality article like this, which is based on the highest quality reliable sources, which has been thoroughly copy-edited and structured by several experiences editors, and has been built and confirmed to fulfill the good article criteria, with an eye towards one day reaching featured article quality, is a completely different ball of yarn. When you try to make several broad sweeping changes to an article like this, you're jumping in the deep end of the pool, and the learning curve will be very steep if you're not familiar with Wikipedia policy.


 * Your goal in making articles "simpler" and "effective" is understandable, but is actually not supported by core policies. Many subjects are complex and complicated, and the job of wikipedia editors is to summarize what reliable sources say on the subject, using a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV.) Excluding large chunks of what reliable sources say because it's not simple enough goes against NPOV. There can be a conflict here where some aspect is given undue weight because it's so complicated that it's difficult to explain briefly (this is part of why the 2010 section here has too much weight at the moment.) But the answer is to use editorial judgment and distill the text down to the most weighty details, not to just delete it because it's not simple. Take a look at some featured articles (which by consensus of several editors have been acknowleged as some of the best articles on Wikipedia.) Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson and Madonna are entertainers who like Lohan have done both acting and music work. Look at how they are written and structured (for example how they explain the interaction between their personal life and work, similar to what we are trying to do here) and how the prose is lengthy and often complex.


 * Apologies for how lengthy this came out, but I hope it at least shows that we do care about your edits and what you are saying. Siawase (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See, Ifiwere, I told you Siawase would be more patient with you than I. Please pay attention to what she said in her long post as she took a lot of trouble to give you very good advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The template i think works better with the awards listed on a differnt template, or with only awards won and not nominated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifiwere (talk • contribs) 19:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, in my view the point of having the awards in the filmography table would be to associate them with the films, so putting them in a separate table would defeat that. Only listing awards won is a pretty good idea, but that's usually not how reliable sources list awards. They usually go by which awards are most notable. (for example, an academy award nomination would carry much more weight than winning a lesser known award.)
 * I had an idea that could solve the issues with what to include. The reason we keep having to discuss what to include is that we don't have any sources to tell us what to do here. But the article prose is sourced, so we could use the prose to determine what to include in the filmography. If it's in the prose and sourced, it gets included, whether it's an "herself" credit, an award, or whatever. Siawase (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

diffrent format
Bio 1. Early Life 2. Acting Career 3. Other ventures Music Fashion 4. Personal life Family Legal issues 5. Filmography 6. Discography 7. Awards and nominations 8. refrences 9. external links

i think this is bascially more clearer because she's known both for her acting and personal life, i think i think having legal troubles under personal life fits well. i think this dosn't mean its a negative article but more efficient and i just think it works wellIfiwere (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks very similar to your previous structure. What is different? Where within that would you cover the interplay between her personal life and her career? Siawase (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * well the legel issues would just cover the trouble with the law, probation violations, and her acting career will cover roles and films done, it could include how going to rehab affect her work Ifiwere (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So compared to your previous version, the new one would mention rehab affecting her work in the career section? Where would the bulk of the rehab coverage be? Siawase (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lindsay admits she's bisexual...
According to the Marie Claire website, there's an article (there's no date for the article) where she essentially admits to being bisexual:Lindsay Lohan: Bisexual, not lesbian. So that means probably could add the bisexual actor & bisexual musician tags to her page, as well as making note of that in the page. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The original article and quote that your link refers to are already included in this article. It has been discussed previously on this talk page, see archives: Previous consensus has been that her exact statement of "Maybe. Yeah." in combination with "I don't want to classify myself." doesn't support an inclusion of bisexual categories per WP:BLPCAT. (By the way, the word "admit" in this context is problematic. If you want to be neutral it's better to use "came out" or even just "said" instead.) Siawase (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Wisconsin protest March 12, 2011 Lohan sign.jpg
File:Wisconsin protest March 12, 2011 Lohan sign.jpg was added to the 2010 section. It's problematic for several reasons, so I boldly removed it. Lohan was actually not incarcerated in March 2011, making it likely that sign was in fact, a joke. The image caption was a bit misleading too. It read "Fans of the actress in protest for the liberation of Lohan on March 12, 2011." A clearer and more neutral description would be: "One protester at the 2011 Wisconsin protests holds up a "Free Lindsay" sign." It wasn't a rally for Lohan, it was a much larger unrelated political protest.

Including an image to illustrate something that isn't covered in the prose strikes is a bit odd in itself, and is at the very least undue weight, and with no sources at all it's bordering on soapboxing.

The dedicated "Free Lindsay" protests took place (or didn't) in LA in July 2010. It's possible that strong enough sources could be found and we could add something on these protests to the prose. But the only reliable sources I could find with a quick google news archive search aren't promising: "One fan held a sign reading, "Free Lindsay."People (emphasis mine) "So Much for the Big Lindsay Lohan Rally"E! Online And using a March 2011 Wisconsin sign, that was likely a joke, to illustrate these completely different July 2010 LA protests (if they even happened to any notable extent) would be confusing and misleading. Siawase (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotti
There haven't been any updates on the Gotti project(s) for 9 months, and the last word was from Lohan's camp that she's not attached. And with the Liz&Dick film now planned out, it's going to be a long time before Gotti gets off the ground with Lindsay in it, if ever. So with all that and WP:CRYSTAL I'm boldly removing Gotti from the article, at least for the time being. Link to diff so it's easy to restore the old info if needed. Siawase (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So that 2010 header...
There's been a few attempts to add a descriptive header for the 2010–present section. In my opinion to be WP:NPOV it would need to include some mention of her legal problems, as well as Machete and also her television work. An obvious suggestion is "Legal issues, Machete and television" ... but to use a "legal issues" header in a BLP is problematic. I can't think of a better way to word it though.

For the 2007 section the somewhat euphemistic "career interruptions" worked because it's accurate and solidly sourced. This is not true for 2010 onwards, where going by the sources we have her efforts at a career interrupted her probation requirements as much as vice versa.

Anyone have any thoughts or other ideas? Siawase (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since there have been no other ideas I went ahead and added the best I could come up with. Other suggestions/comments are more than welcome. Siawase (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

2010–present section cleanup
I have boldly begun trying to clean up the 2010–present section to make it clearer and easier to follow. The section is also a bit too long in general, giving it undue weight compared to the rest of the article. There is quite a lot of excessive detail and redundant material that is both an undue weight issue but also makes it harder to read and follow the prose. Any comments, suggestions or further edits are most welcome. Siawase (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yo, just noticed a bit of a silly incorrect date at the end of this section. Her appearance on glee is marked as 15th may 2011. I'm pretty certain that should be 2012 Wowfood (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice! Very silly indeed, fixed post haste. Siawase (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for a new picture?
The current one is from 2007. And while in most peoples' cases that tends to not be very long, Lohan seems to be living a rather harder life than most. That, and she's been a blonde for quite some time now. If there's a free picture out there somewhere, it might be time to put up something more recent. DigiFluid (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one has been able to find a free picture. Maybe it's time to create an FAQ on this as it keeps coming up: Siawase (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that now. After spending most of a day at work on Wikipedia, apparently I had tunnel vision and didn't see the archives lol DigiFluid (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be great actually! When I went looking for links to put together an FAQ, I ended up finding a recent free image. From all I can find, it actually is free and not flickr washed. Here: File:Lindsay Lohan at Cynthia Rowley.jpg. She's wearing sunglasses but I'm guessing no one will object to using this image in the infobox? Siawase (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lucky find! Works for me. DigiFluid (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated the infobox image. No one at commons seems to have found any issues with the image copyright, so hopefully my assessment was correct. Siawase (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never thought of myself as prude, but does the sunglass photo (@Rowley) show a little too much up her skirt to be appropriate?71.38.136.150 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't even notice that. I just did a quick crop to remove the rest of the audience, but I wouldn't mind cropping the image back further to just her face and upper body. It would make it more of a portrait picture too, which would be appropriate for the infobox anyway. Siawase (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An image with sunglasses covering up most of the subject's face is actually not very encyclopedic. And replacing an appropriate image simply because it's from 2007, which was certainly more relevant cinematically than now, is not a good reason in and other itself. Mostly, though, big sunglasses hiding doesn't do the job the image is supposed to be doing, which is to provide a recognizable, encyclopedic image as a reference tool.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't feel strongly either way here. From previous talk page discussions and edits to the article (attempts to add more recent images that turned out to be non-free) consensus seemed to be strongly in favor or a more recent image in the infobox. But if consensus is that the sunglasses are problematic enough that this image should not be used in the infobox, I have no objections to moving it down. The last section is sorely lacking in images so it would be of use there too. Siawase (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds eminently reasonable &mdash; as do you yourself. It's nice to work with collegial and open-minded colleagues! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a regular user, but would a photo of her Playboy cover be notable? I've seen others with equally notable covers on their pages as well, I believe. Or perhaps a screen shot from one of her films? The photos on here do not exactly show her in the best light. We have known her as a decent looking redhead (that should be noted in a picture I believe) at some points in her life. Or just a decent angled photo in general. There's not really a photo on here that portrays her with the look we mostly associate her with so it would be nice to distinguish her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.86.145 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. I moved your post up since we were already discussing new pictures in this section, I hope you don't mind. If you read above, the problem is finding a free image. The criteria for non-free material and how it can be used on Wikipedia are strict, and Playboy or her movies don't really qualify. The best bet would probably be to find an appropriate image, contacting the copyright holder and convince them to release the image under a free license. Siawase (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This issue had seemed to be resolved on 8 December 2011, with a consensus to move the current infobox image down and replace it in the infobox with a more encyclopedic image that does not hide her face. I assume I and Siawase each thought the other was doing this, and it never got done. Before making such a change, however consensual, after six months, I wanted to note it here for a few days in case editors had thoughts on the issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Section Splitoff Needed
The 2012 paragraphs detailing the events under "2010-Present" should be splitoff into a new section "2012-present" because everything in between 2010 and 2012 (before she complied with her probation) is completely irrelevant to the events that took place in early 2012. The positive notoriety gained in 2012 from new movie roles & compliance with her probation marks a new beginning in her career. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any high quality sources for those opinions? I just went through industry outlets (hollywood reporter and thewrap.com) and they don't seem to share your rosy views. I'm not necessarily against creating a 2012 section, but I don't see the urgency. At this point the only header with a neutral point of view I can see for a separate 2012 section would be "Television." And it doesn't seem crucial to split off a new section right now just to inform our readers she's doing more of what's already in the existing header. Siawase (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean to say that the paragraphs detailing events from 2010-2011 and 2012 are completely unrelated. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As to whether pre-2012 and 2012-on are unrelated, reasonable minds can disagree. While dividing biographies into decades is a semi-arbitrary demarcation, there's at least a neutral logic to it. Having a section only two years long really doesn't make much sense. I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Siawase. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error under 2010-present
In the sentence under 2010-present section, "In May 2010 Lohan travelled to the Cannes Film Festival to promote the biopic Inferno: A Linda Lovelace Story, in which she was set to star as the lead, adult-film performer Linda Lovelace.", the word traveled is misspelled. Traveled is widely accepted as the correct spelling for the past tense of travel in the US. While travelled is of wide use in british language, it is not in american language.[1 ] I have spell checked the rest of the article and that appears to be the only spelling error.--70.120.83.126 (talk) 03:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

car wreck June 2012
She totaled her Porsche when she ran into a tractor-trailer rig on the Pacific Coast Highway and was injured. Should be in wikinews? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a source with those details. That said, her WP article is not a newspaper, and the material is insufficiently noteworthy to be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion, noted. In the meantime:  http://www.starpulse.com/news/Casey_Johnson/2012/06/11/man_in_lindsay_lohan_car_accident_clai  and  http://www.mercurynews.com/celebrities/ci_20833939/people-lindsay-lohan-lied-police-about-accident-report  HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. Doesn't change my view, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, "thanks" for your opinion, I guess. It won't dictate policy on the article, of course. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at high quality coverage of this (and sticking to just known facts and ignoring the rampant speculation) what happened was that Lohan was in the car accident on the way to the set of Liz & Dick. And just week later paramedics were called to her hotel room after she failed to show up on set or respond to phone calls. The fact that these two incidents were tied to her work (and in the case of the car accident, several outlets also tied it to her earlier car accidents/incidents) makes them carry more weight than if they were completely isolated. It's still early days, but it seems likely that these incidents will stay associated with the movie and will become part of her bio as told by most outlets. I'm having a hard time seeing even the highest quality sources, say Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone, ignoring this and write it like the shoot went off without a hitch, especially in light of her earlier highly publicized issues while filming. I'd be fine waiting to see if it stays relevant, but if we were to include something now in the article, it would have to be as brief and succinct as possible. Siawase (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * San Jose Mercury News is a very respected paper. No doubt down the road we will be hearing more of this incident ... of course, it will have to appear in serious print media before it could be included in the article. The morning news shows have touched on it more than once. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding this here to keep track of the sources for possible future reference: "Liz & Dick" investigated by 2 labor organizations" "multiple reports of exhaustion of both cast and crew." Siawase (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Remove "model" from the sentence "Lindsay Lohan (play /ˈloʊ.ən/;[1] born July 2, 1986)[2] is an American actress, recording artist, and model." It should read "Lindsay Lohan (play /ˈloʊ.ən/;[1] born July 2, 1986)[2] is an American actress and recording artist." Also, remove "model" from "Occupation" in the info-box.

She has not had notable success in modeling, therefor she does not need "model" listed as one of her occupations. She is a career actress and recording artist (which she has had notable success in), but not a model. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the first few sentences here.  Statυs (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Her success in modeling was not mainstream and is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article header. It does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Like I said, she did not have notable success in modeling, and at least not notable enough to mention it in the article header. Please read what you can here. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd respectfully disagree. She was an extremely prolific child model with Ford, one of the major modeling agencies. Her long and productive career as a child model led directly to commercials and then her film/TV career. We can't simply ignore the years she made an extraordinarily good living modeling for Calvin Klein Kids and others.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * At best, it should say "former fashion model", like all of the other successful actors' (that were models before their major success) wikipedia articles say. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reassessment request
There have been updates since it became Good Article, and I see some dead links. I want to make sure if it still meets Good Article criteria. I don't know if this article is written in a historical or recent detail. Nevertheless, it needs a reassessment as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailing your concerns (you can disregard the note on your talk page now I guess.) Re: dead links, the majority of references should be to newspapers or magazines, and remain valid references even if the online url disappears, as they can be verified via offline archives. (But if genuinely unverifiable references turn out to be pervasive on closer look, that is a serious concern.) Could you expand what you mean by "historical or recent detail"? Thanks, Siawase (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is information enough, too little, or too much? Is prose well-written? Also, does this article suffer from recentism? --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I'm reading you correctly, your main concern is that the material added since April 2010 (when it was listed as GA) is too lengthy and detailed? I know I see some material there that could be condensed further or possible removed altogether, but it would be very helpful if you could give some concrete examples of the things you find most problematic (so they could be improved.) Either way, unless someone objects, I'd be happy to go through and summarize it down further. Siawase (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know which one, but each has four inline refs in one sentence, especially "2010-present" section. A biographical book can replace them if it exists. Also, Rotten Tomatoes can change, and we're not sure how long a page can last. There have been too many award mentionings in prose, which is already explained in "Filmography and awards" section and List of awards and nominations received by Lindsay Lohan. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but those don't really sound like GA criteria concerns, more like possible FA level issues. I appreciate it though, I'd like to get this article as high quality as possible. As far as I know, no biographical books exist (at least not high quality?) but it would probably be possible to replace some of the recent news sources with the latest Vanity Fair article. Re: Rotten Tomatoes, the only RT ref that mentions a % hasn't changed in the 3 years since it was added (but we could always add an "as of" I guess) and we could add archive.org links for stable referencing. I'm not entirely convinced there are too many award mentions. Only the most notable awards are included in the prose, but there might be some less notable ones that could be removed (maybe the Hollywood Film Festival awards?) I'd also have some NPOV concern with de-emphasizing the more positive aspects of her career (like awards) since the article goes in-depth on the negative. But I'd love to hear opinions from other editors. Siawase (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

With what templates can I tag this article? I must bring this article into full attention. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just want to say I concur with George that the article can do with a once-over. Some of the dead links might be archived at Archive.org. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:GAR actually mentions that "Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs ... are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing." I'm all for keeping up on the URLs in this article, but GAR won't help with that. Siawase (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... How about removing any reference that may be unnecessary, especially when another reference mentions the same thing? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all for that. My only note of caution would be to make sure that the remaining citation says all of what the claim is for &mdash; sometimes things have two cites since one site gives one part of it, and another site gives a second, related part.


 * And, of course, and I'm sure everyone here knows this so please forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, we should favor journalistic citations over fan sites and celebrity gossip sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Again, that's not part of of the GA criteria, but sure, if we're looking to improve the article in general or work towards FA, that would be something to look at. Like I mentioned above, the best way to reduce the number of references and improve the quality of the article, would be to replace the newspaper references that can be replaced with the most recent Vanity Fair article (ref #202 as of right now) but I'd advice caution with the legal issues material in particular to make sure that all the facts mentioned in the article here remain verified (or are removed in the cases they're deemed excessive detail.) And sometimes what looks redundant actually is not, because different news articles include slightly different details. There are also WP:WEIGHT and WP:V reasons for some of the multiple references. If sources are deleted so that only one remains, I'd really like it if we could archive the lone URL that remains at webcite, or link to archive.org, to prevent WP:V fail due to linkrot. (And Tenebrae, I sincerely hope there are no fan sites or gossip sources, at this point we should be working towards using sources that are of *higher* quality than news outlets, ie high quality magazines like Vanity Fair.) Siawase (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree! As I said, I was risking stating the obvious! (That said, I can't tell you how disheartening it is to see so many celebrities' articles "cited" by anonymously sourced tabloid website.) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's one of the reasons this article is actually quite pleasant to work on. Good quality sources are aplenty and easy to find. One other thing that I forgot to mention, if you start to delete news sources, try to make sure that those retained are from a variety of outlets. In including the sources I took caution to include CNN, Reuters and AP at approximately the same rate (I believe those are the three most heavily used) in the interest of NPOV, and I think it's important to try to preserve that. Aside from WP:V (preventing linkrot) one other reason I included duplicate or multiple links in some cases is that there are so much media coverage of Lohan that almost anything can be included if we base it on a single source, but using two or more high quality sources demonstrates that the material has WP:WEIGHT. I fully concede that it comes out excessive sometimes though, and especially after a sequence of events can be condensed down to a single sentence later. ie, look at a sentence like "A few days later she entered the Betty Ford Center, a drug and alcohol treatment center, where she remained on court order for three months until early January 2011." That was originally built piecemeal using several different news stories over several months, and it was only after the whole sequence of events was over that the picture became clear and could be condensed down to what it is now. Sentences like "Due to jail overcrowding, Lohan served the sentence under house arrest, wearing a tracking ankle monitor, for 35 days between May 26 and June 29." are similar. In some cases the reference with the last date after each sequence might actually adequately sum up the events, and the earlier references that were used to build the story as it unfolded can be discarded, but it would have to be checked carefully in each case. Sorry if this is tl;dr I'm just trying to explain the method that was actually there in the history of what might look like a bit of madness after the fact. Siawase (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

George Ho: The People magazine ref you removed here was verifying something that remains in the article and is now unverified. You need to either rewrite it to remove the material or restore the ref. Siawase (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know which other refs to remove; by the way, added back People mag. Still, I don't spend time on this article very much; I believe what I see. --George Ho (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there was another redundant reference next to the People one that I removed instead. I think you'd need to read through every reference to make sure the ones that remain adequately cover what's in the article, pretty time consuming work. Siawase (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And as a note in general, People is a TIme Inc. publication, so there's a pretty solid hierarchy of editors and fact-checkers. Despite it being about celebrities, it's a solid source journalistically. -_Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, surprisingly it a decent quality source. I still try to avoid it most of the time, because a) there usually are even higher quality sources available, and b) weight/WP:NOT issues, they cover a lot of material that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. With few exceptions, if People is the "weightiest" source covering something, likely the material will be inappropriate. But in this case I just couldn't find another source that covered the filming of the India documentary equally well (most of the sources that are usually higher quality went into excessive detail and missed the basics.) Siawase (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing another article I just came across the handy rotten-tomatoes template to help keep those links fresh. Siawase (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Can I remove Rotten Tomatoes data then? I don't think it relates to her acting at all, but there could be critics from RT who evaluate her acting. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What? The concern you brought up with Rotten Tomatoes was the stability of the site. I found a tool to help alleviate that, and now you suddenly jump to wanting to delete everything from there? Siawase (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... If RT is helpful, then I won't remove it. Well, it talks about one film, but... I don't know. Still, I just... Well, look at Katharine Hepburn article: one section discusses one decade or another. This article, on the other hand, mentions one section of one year and another section of one year. Oh boy... --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a more general comment, I'm getting a bit unsure what exactly you're trying to do here. You initially brought up what sounded like very urgent concern for this article's GA status, but so far none of the specifics you have brought up are part of the GA criteria. No, this article is not of the same caliber as an FA on one of the greatest movie stars in history. It's a GA that still has flaws when compared with an FA, but that does not mean it fails GA. The GA criteria really are far less stringent than FA criteria (notice all the things not present in the GA criteria.) It would be great if we had the quality of sources to build a biograhy the way Katharine Hepburn was built, but we just don't. If I may suggest, you might want to look at some FA articles for actors/singers at least somewhere close to the same era as Lohan, to get some idea of what the best Wikipedia biographies that are roughly equivalent to this one are like:
 * Regarding the structure, I have already said I'd be happy to summarize the article further and remove details if there is consensus for that. Re: the sections specifically, the Hepburn article actually has several sections spanning only 2-3 years, during what I'm guessing was her most active periods. Also, Hepburns career spanned over 60 years, Lohan's movie career so far doesn't even span 15, with a very noticeable peak in mainstream activity and success during just a few years, roughly 2003-2005. I think it's expected that the sections would reflect that. But again, if there are some good ideas for how to consolidate into longer sections and there is consensus for it, I'm very much open to that. Siawase (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well... it's been four years, and I figure that the review may be dated, so why do you think reassessment is unnecessary? --George Ho (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did you get four years from? As far as I can see from the article milestones it was listed as GA in April 2010, so that's just over two years. In my opinion, if anything, it's actually improved since then. And frankly, I don't think going through a full reassessment will accomplish anything. As far as I can tell this article is very solidly within the GA criteria. If there are some GA level issues (none have been brought up so far!) they could likely be fixed rather quickly and easily. It's very unlikely it would end up delisted. Siawase (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, two. Nevertheless, it was GA in 2006, turned into FA in 2006, and then delisted in 2007. Anyway, what about broad criteria? I don't know how many aspects are there, but I don't know why her sexuality is mentioned in "2008–09: Television appearances and fashion". Even "2010–present: Legal issues, Machete and television" looks choppy. Even the 2005 section mentions later years of her personal life. --George Ho (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how where within the article things are mentioned is part of the broad criteria? Her sexuality is mentioned because, well, given the massive attention it received, even in highly reliable sources, it's NPOV to include it. Because of the interplay between Lohan's personal and professional life, we made the decision to organize the article chronologically. (You can look at the talk page archives for the discussions regarding this.) That's why personal life material is found within the chronology. There is no requirement for a separate "Personal life" section (indeed, several FA bios don't have one, but rather use the same chronological structure as this article.) And the headers can't include everything contained in each section, just the most notable milestones that occurred within the period. So that's why her sexuality is found under a section titled "Television appearances and fashion" because it was during that period she dated a woman and first discussed her sexuality publicly. And no, not everything is strictly chronological, because then it would likely be even more "choppy." In a few cases things are ordered topically even if it's out of order to make it flow better, but I'm open to discussing that. But again, in which order the material within article is presented is not part of the GA criteria. Siawase (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)