Talk:Sunny Leone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, here we go:


 * 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:

Some comments: 1. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must touch upon each of the major sections of the article and (briefly) summarize them.

2. Your images should have alt text, per Alternative text for images
 * Fixed for the images in the body. Infobox template doesn't support alt text though... Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

3. There are links in the article that go to redirects that need to be fixed. In the first section I found Sirmaur, Catholic School, Bisexual, and United States Permanent Resident Card. Please fix these and any others in the article either by using piped links, or reformatting.
 * Fixed for the links in the body. Dismas |(talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

4. There's quite a few two-sentence paragraphs here; try to expand or combine them so that they're at least three sentences long, as one or two sentence paragraphs really tend to chop up the flow and make it difficult to read.

5. The captions on the non-infobox images are a little... wanting. Is there any way to make them more interesting/detailed (Leone at event X doing Y in Z in 2009 or whatever) like the one in the infobox?
 * Fixed. Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Per WP:ELPOINTS, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article", so the link to "Naked Ambition: An R-rated Look at an X-rated Industry" should be moved to the external links section and Italicized per MOS:TITLE
 * Fixed by pointing to the Wiki article for the book. Tabercil (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Per External links, four "official" sites are probably a bit much. I would suggest at least removing the Facebook page.
 * Dunno about that, but I can move some of them out of the external links by using the Web presence infobox. Tabercil (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

8. I couldn't see where the citation for her shoe size mentions that fact. In addition, the "number of films" count is out of date in the infobox for both links.
 * Both items fixed. Tabercil (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

9. Citations #6 and #8 are identical.
 * Fixed. Tabercil (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

10. In "Early life", "When she was 15, her family received their green card" doesn't appear to be cited by the reference.
 * Fixed. Pulled out the green card reference and changed it to state when she moved to the US, using Toronto Star as a cite.

11. "She graduated from high school in 1999 and enrolled in college" in that same section is unreferenced.

12. Moving on to "Career", "She posed for Penthouse magazine, and was named Penthouse Pet of the Month for the March 2001 issue, followed by a feature in the Holiday 2001 edition of Hustler magazine as a Hustler Honey" is uncited (or at least, not cited in the surrounding refs). The sourcing for this section is sporadic overall - there are references for some of the publications, but not others. From there on it gets spotty and, with an article about a porn star, there is very little that can be taken for granted and unsourced.

13. The further I go in this article, the more the prose breaks into little one-or-two sentences factoids, which makes the article difficult to read overall as it lacks a proper flow. These facts should be integrated into some sort of structured paragraphs or removed if they are not important to the overall article.

Unfortunately, the article does not meet the criteria right now and, as it is unlikely to do so without a significant revision of referencing and prose, I am going to fail the article for now, rather than place it on hold, which will also give another editor a chance to look it over if you decide to renominate it. Thank you for your work thus far. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Canadian  Paul  02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)