Talk:Megan Fox/GA2

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

Reviewer: liquidluck ✽ talk  04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, the article looks close to GA level. While the nominator isn't a major contributor, I'll accept the talk page note as notification. The article passes the quick fail criteria (it looks like the quote discussion has been resolved, and there's been no major edits to the article in a week), so give me a few days to look the article over and compile my review. liquidluck ✽ talk 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Links and media
 * Please add alt text to all images- see WP:ALT.
 * Two links to disambig pages, but neither of those should be linked anyway- see WP:OVERLINK.
 * Seven dead, important-looking references. There are also several redirects which can be fixed (for example, link directly to GQ.com rather than men.style.com).
 * Six citations lack citation templates.
 * Multiple formatted references lack available information. For example, Ref #4 states its publication date- but the date isn't included in the reference. Just scanning, but I see that every reference from #35 - 46 lacks a publication date. There are others.
 * bbc, coed, elle, cg, and london interview are all refnames with information given twice- I.E.,  is in place, but rather than simply using   the next time the site is referenced, the entire citation  is given again.
 * Standardize the citation formatting; either wikilink the publishers each time in every reference or wikilink them only the first time they appear in the list. Also, present publishers the same way each time- Ref #5 lists "Sirius.com" while Ref #8 lists "Sirius".
 * Format publishers correctly. Websites should not be italicized, while print and television shows should be. Ex. Refs #3 & 4 should be, but Refs #5 & 12 should not be.
 * All caps titles should be re-written normally (Ref 62). LIFE magazine should be written Life- see WP:TRADEMARK.


 * Seven links to IMDB, an unreliable source.
 * The homepage of Morningside Academy reference does not mention Fox, and searching the website brought up nothing on her.

The following sources also appear unreliable:
 * http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=38&num=26477 (tabloid)
 * http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=37&num=25887 (tabloid)
 * http://www.popcrunch.com/megan-fox-stop-it-with-the-angelina-jolie-comparisions/ (a tabloid blog?)
 * http://www.popcrunch.com/megan-fox-lara-croft-tomb-raider-replacement-for-angelina-jolie/ (a tabloid blog?)
 * http://filmonic.com/megan-fox-small-role-jonah-hex (looks like a fansite)
 * http://meganfoxbuzz.com/tattoos/ (looks like a fansite)
 * http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/06/24/megan_fox_regrets_stoner_tattoo (tabloid blog?)
 * http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/06/01/quote_of_the_day_megan_fox_s_tattoo_rebe (tabloid blog?)
 * http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-just-movie-31/orci-and-kurtzman-not-returning-to-write-transformers-3-168586/ (forum)
 * http://www.tmz.com/2007/07/08/megan-fox-pro-pot/ (TMZ's better than most tabloids, but a better source can probably be found.)

There are too many problematic citations to justify moving on just yet. The ten unreliable-looking links, seven IMDB links, and seven dead links alone come to twenty-four reference issues. Since this is an article on a living person, I'm setting a dead line of March 2, 2010 for the broken/unreliable links and March 4, 2010 for the formatting issues. If the issues are fixed before then, leave me a note my talk page. liquidluck ✽ talk 07:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On hold

As no effort has been made to fix the reference issues I have noted above, I am failing this article. Before nominating the article again, please fix the reference issues, review the GA criteria, and perhaps try a peer review. I'll also leave a few comments on the article's content in a little while. liquidluck ✽ talk 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Result:


 * I've taken care of all of the unreliable refs I pointed out above along with a few others, deleting information in my wake. Before nomming again someone should check for neutrality and try to replace the info about her education; here's the diff for easy access.

Quick content review, since I failed the article due to its references. It isn't very thorough, but it is a start:
 * Content comments
 * There's no need to list Fox's co-stars unless they've had a significant impact on her life. For example, she's worked with LeBouf in three films, so he should be kept, but playing Ashley Olsen's rival has little to do with her.
 * Addendums like "and rival of Alex Stewart" and "a love interest of Sydney Young" are also unnecessary. The names don't mean anything to the reader. If you must keep them, say "the love interest of the main character" instead.
 * Being a sex symbol is a significant part of Fox's career, which Fox acknowledges. The fact is mentioned in the lead, but is basically a passing mention in the article. Restructure the article to have "As a sex symbol" or "sex symbol" as a level three header beneath public image. The section should include its influence on her career and her comparison to angelina jolie.
 * Following the above comment will help organize the public image section, but the Personal life section is also messy. For example, "Fox has two dogs, including a Pomeranian named after Sex Pistols bassist Sid Vicious.[67] Fox has also openly stated that she supports the legalization of marijuana, saying that she does not consider it a drug and that she would be first in line to buy a pack of joints.[68]" What does having two dogs have to do with supporting marijuana legalization?

Good luck! liquidluck ✽ talk 04:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not having been here to help fix up this article in time. I have been busy with various other things. On the subject of Fox being a sex symbol being a passing mention in this article, I do not get that when taking the Public image section into consideration. That section strongly emphasizes her sex appeal. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see this comment sooner, Flyer! I agree that, overall, the article discusses her sex appeal, but the information is broken up into several different sections. If it were to be put together, I'd say it would be better organized and make a better case. liquidluck ✽ talk  00:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)