Wikipedia:Peer review/Stacy London/archive1

Stacy London

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it to the featured article list. Since creating an account on wikipedia I've developed an interest in writing and continued to edit pages that are appealing to me. I've recently moved into writing new articles and I've done a lot of rewriting/updating to this article in particular. Since I've never taken any journalism or creative writing classes I feel this is a good way for me to get some constructive feedback on what could be better. This article isn't long so it shouldn't take too much time to review/critique. I would also appreciate it if someone could rate this article according to WikiProject biography's quality assessment scale and change the status (if need be) on this article's discussion page.

Thanks, Gbern3 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are my comments on the article. I think FA is a long way for this article, but it is getting there, slowly.
 * Comments by Music2611
 * The lead fails to properly summarize the article.
 * The image is tagged because it doesn't have licensing info.
 * Vogue magazine can be linked.
 * Does ref 5 cover the first section of the Career section? Please make clear.
 * Try to avoid words such as "currently" and "most recently", they have to be changed eventually.
 * Either refer to Stacy London as "Stacy" or "London", you mix them up in the article. My advice would be London, because Stacy sounds like you know her personally.
 * Kelly's first name in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the Career section is unnecessary since he is already mentioned earlier in the article.
 * Final sentence of second paragraph in the Career section is unreferenced.
 * Third paragraph of the Career section is unreferenced.
 * Underscores in What Not to Wear (US) are redundant, (US) should be covered with a pipe: What Not to Wear . The show should be linked the first time it is mentioned and it should be in italics.
 * Does ref 18 cover the Oprah thing? Please make clear. :Removed that sentence altogether.
 * Oprah's last name needs to be mentioned for readers who are unfamiliar with her. N/A
 * Please rename the final section "Personal Life", is more clear.
 * TV.com is an unreliable source. ??? Why? ❌
 * References 4,5,6,9,10,18,19 and 20 are incorrectly cited.
 * Reference 23 is missing publisher info.
 * General Comment: Please try to keep the article as chronological as possible. In the career section you jump from this year to that year, which makes reading a bit uncomfortable.

Hopefully my comments are helpful.-- Music 26/  11  12:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are very helpful. Thank You. Gbern3 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with references 4, 5, 6... 20. If no author or date is given, isn't that the only way you can cite them? 66.213.50.2 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)