Wikipedia:Peer review/Paris Hilton/archive1

Paris Hilton
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… This BLP may be unique in the fact that Ms. Hilton has so many things going on past and present that the body sections are hard to name and organize. Once we get that done then we can improve the article more. I put this in the general category as I felt article format may fit best there. Feel free to move it if it belongs elsewhere.

Thanks, Canoe1967 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Where to start? First, any editor should first check out WP:BLP and see if the article lives up to the proper standards established by people who know more than me.
 * Writing style says "Avoid understatement and overstatement."
 * This includes silly verbs like "hailed", "landed", "parlayed", "made headlines", ad nauseum.
 * ...and adjectives like "phenomenal".
 * The line described as "feminine, flirtatious and glamorous" and sourced to People magazine? As anyone could assume, the article is simply quoting a press release.
 * "Some in the media" see WP:Weasel
 * "it was speculated that the pair fell out due to Nicole showing one of Paris' homemade sex tapes to a group of their friends. They relinked their friendship in October 2006." Source? Anything? Not even one of the many gossip pages used as sources on this article?
 * Wikipedia uses summary style; a complete guide to every endorsement and product that Hilton has associated with is not necessary.
 * "The show did quite well;" Just list the ratings. There's no need to insert a comment before every ratings number to tell us whether the author thinks it did well or not.
 * The "Charity" section is pretty much a joke. An unspecified amount to a children's hospital, becoming a spokeswoman for a USO program, and running a 5K, combined with endless quotes from her Twitter (!?) account make up the vast majority of the section. Most notably, receiving an award is not an act of charity.
 * It seems downright absurd to have an article about Paris Hilton and not include at least a paragraph or two about the sex tape that clearly made her a star. The article is a constant state of trying to convince us that her "breakout" roles and successes happened to be around the same time as the publication of the tape. If nothing else, there should be a section that includes information about the legal issues surrounding the tape and her compensation from it.
 * There's really no need to include examples of the words she allegedly used.
 * There are so many quotes in the article from Hilton herself. It isn't necessary to include everything she's ever said about herself, the promotions she's participated in, or the media she stars in. Why would her comments be any more notable than anyone else's?


 * Sources

Any information from unsourced or poorly-sourced information in a BLP should be removed immediately, regardless of whether it makes the person look good, bad, or neutral. There are quite a few issues with sources. These are only a select few:
 * Sources should be standardized in some way. Some have much more information than others.
 * Many links are dead. This will require significant clean-up.
 * The "New York's leading 'it' girl" comment needs to be sourced inline, since it's an arbitrary opinion anyway. Or removed.
 * Speaking of inline sources, they should be "X, writing for Publication Y, wrote "blah blah" about the performance." not "Publication Y said "blah blah" about the performance." The opinion of one writer is not the same as the opinion of a publication's editorial board.
 * "The film did well in sales." Source?
 * Generally speaking, IMDB should not be used as a source, especially if it is user-written, as the biography here is. See Citing IMDb. The awards page alone is cited a whopping 15 times.
 * World Net Daily (WND) is absolutely not a legitimate source.
 * "Now Smell This" is a blog about perfume. Is there no better source for this information?
 * The "Imnotobsessed.com" link is merely a sentence with four dead-linked pictures.
 * ParisHiltonSite.net... I'm thinking not so much.
 * The link labeled as "Variety" is not only 404, but it's ParisHilton.com. There are a number of other references to self-published sources.
 * Need I say anything about Perez Hilton?
 * Anything called "The Hollywood Gossip" is probably going to fail WP:BLPGOSSIP.

These are just the very basic things I noticed on first reading. I couldn't even begin to point out every problem, and there are hundreds. Almost every sentence has one or more issues that need to be worked out. The article reads like a publicity release, with a few notes of criticism thrown in for good measure. Ms. Hilton really doesn't have "so many things" going on at once; rather, everything she does has been publicisized to death. Countless other celebrities do the same things she does, but she's just better at publicizing it. Runfellow (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)