Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Amanda Bynes/1

Amanda Bynes

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Amanda_Bynes/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review
 * Result: Delisted per points below. GamerPro64  01:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I hate having to be the bad guy nominating this article for GAR, although it has been on my mind for several months and has been lacking in some essential GA criterion for several months now. In regards to being well-written, I find it questionable to have two separate sections ("2010–present: Personal struggles" and "Personal life" with the subsection "Legal issues") that should be covering the same material, although are very patchy in their coverage. Its neutrality is debatable in that it appears as though there is undue weight given to several instances of Bynes' erratic behavior; at quick glance, I see a full paragraph dedicated to her allegations of abuse by her father, which could be condensed into a sentence. The overall accuracy of the article is suspect given the almost completely unsourced "Awards and nominations" section, while Bynes' frequent displays of unruly activity and alleged mental illness threaten its stability significantly. I think that the article is too far gone to be salvaged in this moment; the best option in my eyes would be to delist the article and give it a thorough revamping for a later promotion. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delist I agree. I keep cutting back the nonsense about her personal troubles, and it keeps growing back. Why is there even as much as a sentence about a former co-star who claims to still be her friend? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delist in addition to the points you bring up, WikiRedactor, there are also malformatted/unreliable sources. I really don't think "personal life" warrants a separate section—especially once all the fluff is removed—and should be intertwined with "early life" into one "life and career" section. It also has falls short on broadness in coverage since there is no detail on her acting style, influences, or what critics have said of her work.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delist - where do we start? Well, the initial bit of the article is just too short, we don't know why she got into acting, what she was interested in, did her parents support her, how did she feel? Her career since 2010 seems to have passed by without comment, and the "Legal Issues" section is a WP:BLP violating tabloid rant. Compare and contrast with, say, Katy Perry, which is much better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot about such missing detail, Ritchie. That just adds salt to an open wound. On a side note, I'm surprised this was listed as GA in April 2006 yet wasn't reviewed during 2009–2010 GA Sweeps.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delist The article just isn't up to par with the other good articles. I was surprised to see it as a good article when I first started working on it. Knowing others that work on it, it probably won't make any progress soon. VisaBlack (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delist - Needs to be revamped. ProKro (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)