Talk:Louise Glover/Archive 1

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:11, 27 August 2007 (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:
 * 1) The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it needs to touch upon ever major point/heading in the article, which it currently completely fails to do. For an article of this size, it would necessitate about two paragraphs and should mention the basics from every major header. In short, it should give a summary of the article that would be good enough that, if someone read only the lead, they would at least get a basic idea of what the article said.
 * Expanded. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone and make the prose seem very choppy. ✅ (merged paragraphs)
 * Also expanded some. The choppiness is my fault I'm afraid, that's just my (lack of) style. :-(. Only one two sentence paragraph left, and that's because I just can't see what to add to the line about the marriage; and we can't just leave it out, as it is rather important. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Following from above, the prose is indeed somewhat choppy, though not entirely unsalvageable. It's hard to tell at the moment, but it sort of reads like fact after fact after fact; although there is enough flow for me to consider that it just might be the really short paragraphs. I'll take a look at this again when I come back after the hold, but it's something to think about while the paragraphs are being merged/expanded.
 * 2) "Besides modelling" isn't the best way to describe the sub-section - perhaps a more encyclopedic/descriptive heading would be appropriate. ✅ (removed subsection header)
 * Expanded it a bit; she tried a lot of things. But didn't bring it back as a subsection, because I couldn't think of a better name. Added an intermediate paragraph that might explain what she doesn't like about modelling, as a way to improve "flow" - if you don't think it helps, take it out. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 26 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) ✅ (moved stuff around)
 * I'm sorry, because I do appreciate the effort here, but I don't think I like the combination of those two sections into a Biography section. After all, the whole article is a biography, isn't it? I looked at various biographies from Featured Articles and a large number of those articles about current actresses use just that breakdown into Early life and Personal life sections, examples:
 * Miranda Otto: Early life; Career; Personal life
 * Diane Keaton: Early life and education; Career; Personal life
 * KaDee Strickland: Early life and education; Career; Artistry and image; Personal life
 * See, in Louise Glover the Early life section flows into the Career section quite nicely, since a lot of what we know about her early life is her trying to start her career. Sticking the Later or Personal life bits in between them disrupts that flow, I think. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I will be putting the article on hold for a period of seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Please note as well that I still have not checked the references, which I will be doing in a second review, along with a re-read of the article to see if the choppiness concerns have been addressed, so the above notes do not entail the entirety of my concerns at the moment. Cheers, CP 01:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like some significant work has been done on the article, so I will re-read it sometime soon (likely tomorrow) and update my review. I do want to address the "Early life" vs. "Personal life" concern, however, at the moment. My first comment would be that this is not an FA review, it's a GA review. I see comparisons as being valid, say, as examples of project-specific guidelines (as in, here's an example of how Feature Articles do "Plot Summaries" for WP:FILM or something like that), but I really do feel that FA and GA encompass two completely different ideas. Certainly, I don't feel that GA class is "below" FA class (not that I'm accusing you of thinking that way, but a lot of people do) but as apples and oranges really; they have different purposes. Secondly, I also point out that they're "Featured articles" not "Perfect articles." I've seen many FA articles that have, for example, the place of birth lodged in within the date of birth, which is an unambiguous violation of WP:DATE, which states that the lifespan brackets are not to entangle places of birth and death. My point is that unless it's project specific guidelines, I'm not a big fan of comparing any article to any other, especially given the nature of the project.


 * Having said all that and made myself sound like a total jackass, I do agree with your comments on the flow. I think it might be more appropriate to unmerge and just rename one of the sections. It's just that I don't consider most people's early life to be a completely different topic than their personal life. Cheers, CP 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more than willing to compromise. I recognize my style is rather stilted and mechanical, which is why I try to follow models that other people tell me are better, and I thought the point of FAs was that they were the best articles we had. But if you have any specific suggestions, I'm certainly open. What do you suggest? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My idea was that Good Article were like miniature FA articles &mdash; just as good, but for articles that, for whatever reasons, would never become featured. Some people use GA as a stepping stone to FA, since, if done properly it can be a great peer review tool, and thus the notion of it being "below" FA arises. While I don't mind giving a FA candidate a "stepping stone" review as a GA (especially if it's a well-written article), I don't think before I do it "Well, it's not FA, so I'll hold the article to a lower standard." I know that, as one reviewer, I'm going to miss things; therefore the things I do catch I want to fix. GA to me is like FA with one reviewer; you may miss things, but you don't hold it to a lower standard. Anyhow, I'm rambling; the relevant reply is in GA Review Part 2. Cheers, CP 18:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Part 2
Specific comments:
 * 1) Reference #3 doesn't work for me, but it looks like more of a traffic overload than that the link is broken. Maybe someone else can check this to confirm?
 * Worked a week ago, honest. :-) I added an Internet Archive link to a version that seems to have all the relevant information. Here's the Google cached version but that will probably expire in a few days, the Internet Archive should stick around longer. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's up again, probably just a temporary glitch. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm still a bit iffy on the prose, as the "Career" section does read a little like fact after fact without connecting prose, but I can't really hold that against you without more specific comments; but it might be something to think about if you want to get to FA class (just to spite the AfD =P) What I can point out, however, is that paragraph six of "Career" reads like an interview in a magazine rather than an encyclopedic article. The first sentence is too casual and the second is one large quote from her, which would be far better summarized. I'm not entirely certain that I'm explaining this very well, so I'll try and clarify it if need be, but it's too casual to be an encyclopedic tone.
 * I can probably take out that whole paragraph; I put it in hoping to make "connecting prose"... :-) Theyre complaints about how fame is hard, which is probably true, but a truism. The only real fact there is that she tried to start a modeling agency, and that doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere. Even that she tried is her say so. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The beginning of the seventh paragraph of "Career" worries me in a similar manner. It begins "Besides modelling, Glover has attempted to expand her career into other areas, as a fall-back if she can't make it as a model." Aside from the fact that contractions shouldn't... err... I mean should not... be used in an encyclopedic article, it doesn't seem to make much sense. It is preceded by six paragraphs discussing how successful her modeling career has been, then says "but if she can't make it as a model." Maybe it's just verb tense confusion, but I reckon that the last few paragraphs pretty much confirm that she's "made it" as a model already. "it was a fall-back, in case she had not made it as a model" maybe?
 * Honestly, I think she has "made it" as a model as well, as did the several interviewers cited, but she seems to continue to worry about it. (I also doubt that someone used to living on an international model's salary could live on what a scuba instructor earns in the same way - but maybe I don't understand enough about either profession.) I'll think about how to rephrase. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe just take out the last part of the sentence? Is it really important why she's done other things (not meaning to be rude, though it sounds like that when I read it, but legitimately asking)? Cheers, CP 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it will make the difference between getting the little green plus, I'll take it out, but it seems at least somewhat important. She mentions it in several interviews: "I'm looking into becoming a dive instructor in the next three years -- it's something I've become extremely passionate about and I will fall back on it when my modeling days are over." Playboy "I've become really good at scuba diving. If I don't make it as a model, I'll fall back on that or take up photography." Savvy "What do you want the world to know about you? I'm a very successful business woman, photographer agent and a model." BrianX (I guess that doesn't give a reason as such.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonEMouse (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 January 2008
 * 1) The "Personal life" section is troublesome for more than the nomenclature. I still haven't decided how to fix the naming thing, but I'll probably just end up forgetting about it before I pass the article. One important stylistic issue does concern me, however. I'm not sure why "Legal problems" is its own Level 2 header, when it seems that, at best, it would fit as a Level 3 subheader of "Personal life." Personally I would just make it its own paragraph under "Personal life" and not bother to highlight it, but a Level 3 header is fair as well, especially given the AfD for this article. In any case, I don't see a justification for a Level 2 header, unless the content were to be significantly tied into this.
 * Lowered to level 3, and inserted somewhat chronologically: is this better? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much, yes, and I've given up on trying to figure out how to rename the "Personal life" section. Judging by how widespread it is, I think it merits discussion outside the scope of a single article. I say leave it for now, I'll bring my gripe up elsewhere; no sense in holding up an individual article.
 * 1) Going on what I said earlier, I'm worried about all the direct quotes in the article, as they do seem to lower the tone and increase the choppiness of the article. I'm not certain why they can't be summarized as opposed to directly quoted. None of the quotes say anything that needs to be directly quoted (nothing where her language in particular makes the difference or a particularly famous quote). I see a personal quote being justified if it's famous or if the person's language matters directly. For example, if she was quoted as calling Hugh Hefner "a blood-sucking parasite" (random, untrue example), then that would justify a direct quote, as it's more useful to quote than to say that she just didn't like Hefner. The three that I could find are all talking about herself, which I see no need to be quoted directly. At best, the one under "Personal life" could be used as "Glover claims that she 'should have been born in America'" ""I should have been born in America", she says," on the other hand, deals the article blows to both tone and style.
 * Removed the "" marks around all, except the "more natural look", which is more of a qualifier than a quote, but can also go if you like, it's not a big deal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold still ongoing. I'll pay better attention to this article now I see how much work is being done, so please leave messages here if need be. Cheers, CP 18:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing I want to question ism as for reliable source, would MySpace class as reliable source, in another words, would vanity sites class as reliable source, would calling herself international model on her MySpace count as reliable source, now here is something for you to consider yourself. Metallicash (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it depends what Myspace is citing; if it's citing her personal opinion on something or backing up her bra size that's printed in a more reliable source, then it's fine. "International model," no, unless it's backed up by another source. Is there an instance like that in this article? Cheers, CP 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think not: I used her MySpace blog to cite her breast reduction, to be able to say that the Scouting for Girls appearance was her first music video (there's a better source that says she was in it), and to say what happened to her WWE attempt (there's a better source about her making the attempt). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have also included the fact that I checked the Myspace to make sure it wasn't being used to reference anything beyond its reliability, and it's not, so it's good to go. Cheers, CP 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The bit that says she is a photographer has to go as she is not notable for it. Metallicash (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why, so long as it is sourced. Anyhow, is work still being done on this article? Shall I extend the hold? Cheers, CP 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Give me a last few days please - winter vacation's coming to an end, and I had 2 GAs to deal with. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Extending the hold now. Cheers, CP 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I haven't been more active on this one, AnonEMouse. I had intended to help more, but all these holiday family activities have cut down on my Wikipedia time :p —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone else was as lost as I was just now, the last thing that needs to be taken care of is #5 under "GA Review Part 2" Cheers, CP 02:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Got that one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything's good to go, so I am now passing the article as a Good Article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied by AskMen.com
It looks like an earlier version of this article, before the GA rewrite, was copied, almost entirely and with only slight rephrasing, by AskMen.com as http://www.askmen.com/women/models_400/418_louise_glover.html :-). We should take that as a compliment, I guess. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Louise Glover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100915173006/http://www.citynetmagazine.com:80/divas/miss-october-2007.html to http://www.citynetmagazine.com/divas/miss-october-2007.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071029043053/http://www.playboy.com:80/commerce/email/specialeditions/06_22_06/ to http://www.playboy.com/commerce/email/specialeditions/06_22_06/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louise Glover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204022107/http://archive.thisissthelens.co.uk/2004/10/14/2234.html to http://archive.thisissthelens.co.uk/2004/10/14/2234.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202113707/http://www.playboy.com/girls/girlpages/moy2006/ to http://www.playboy.com/girls/girlpages/moy2006/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)