Talk:Anne Hathaway/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I was the person who delisted this article in 2009. Unfortunately I see fit to quickfail this article for a few quick reasons as follows per WP:WIAGA. Please do not read into this as me having it in for young Miss Hathaway (quite to the contrary). A quickfail is in order for the following reasons:

2b-5 citation needed templates for starters

3a-the main infobox image alludes to Hasty Pudding Woman of the Year honors which were not even mentioned in the text. You mention the date of the announcement of her Oscar host role, but not the date of the role.

1b-I originally failed this in part for problems with coverage of her personal relationships so when I glanced at that section now I see MOS issues such as linking the second instance of Raffaello Follieri rather than the first.

I don't mean to be harsh on this article. It is vastly improved since I delisted it. However, GA standards have improved as well. The article could easily pass with some minor improvements, not the least of which are mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also 6a-make sure all images have {{Personality rights}} tags on them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with this article at all, just an interested onlooker. I'm confused as to how the points above relate to the "quick-fail criteria". Citations templates, for example, aren't even required by the GA criteria. While GA reviewers are under no obligation to put an article on hold, I would have thought that an article that "could easily pass with some minor improvements" would be the ideal candidate for reviewing and placing on hold. I have not read the article in detail and am not commenting on its suitability to be listed as a GA, but just going by what the reviewer has stated above.--Beloved Freak 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always quickfail for lack of inline citations. In this case, I presented a couple of other reasons. You are welcome to bring this article to WP:GAR or to renominate. At GAR, I can assure you that this will not pass without almost all the changes I have suggested. Lack of citations is in and of itself a reason to ultimately fail an article. It is also an indicator of other likely problems.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I still think some of those points are a little too minor to "quick fail" over, but I understand that you were just mentioning them as additional points. I must now confess that I misunderstood your point about "citation needed templates", or misread it anyway. I thought you were requesting citations to be formatted using templates rather than noting {{citation needed}} templates! In light of that, the review makes sense and is not unfair as I thought it was. Thanks, --Beloved Freak 16:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]