Talk:Frankie Rayder/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability review

No issues upon inspection of article edit history and talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• One image used File:Missy and Frankie Rayder.jpg - adequate fair use rationale on image page.
• No free-use images in article - consider checking Wikimedia Commons, flickr, and also posting requests for help at talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 25, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pretty good, yes. I would merge the short paragraph in subsection: Personal and family.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. If there are notable publications as sources that are redlinks, would it be possible to create stubs for them? Not sure if it is appropriate to have "Newsbank" in the publisher fields - the original publisher is the publisher of the publication itself, newspaper's publisher, etc.

3. Broad in coverage?: Could Biography subsection be split up into two or so sub-subsection headings?

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone throughout.

5. Article stability? See above.

6. Images?: See above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Newsbank removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't think either of the two remaining redlink publications are very notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Bio sections split.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• If the redlinks in the article are notable, new articles/stubs could be created. If they are not notable, then why have the redlinks at all?
• Ah, I did not notice this Career summary/Career highlights thing. This could use some copyediting so it flows in a more chronological pattern - per WP:LEAD, the lede should have the summary, not the main body text, that is awkward. Please respond below. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I delinked one and stumbled upon a link for the other.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Everything in the LEAD is suppose to be in the main body in greater detail. However, if I put each magazine cover in chronological order within the main body text it would be a mess. Not sure what to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Just saying it looks quite awkward to have "Career summary" and then "Career highlights" when the summary should be in the lede, and not later in the article as well. The article itself should ideally flow chronologically. Might be best to inquire at the relevant WikiProjects' talk pages and at WP:GOCE for some copyeditors at this point. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

These two might be notable enough to start articles on:

• Daryl K
• River Falls High School

Cirt (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• • I was looking at the redlinks in the citations. I had corrected those two. I will revisit the article.
  • I have never been asked to create all the stubs for an article before. WP policy is to create redlinks where we think articles may be forthcoming. There is no policy that to create an article you must create all its redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Well if the topics are notable it's a nice idea to help make the article more complete, shouldn't take too long to create a new stub or two. Cirt (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll stub DK, but I don't really want to stub her local high school.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Is the high school notable enough to have its own article? Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll watch this page for further updates. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Can you strike resolved issues So I know what you are watching for.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• I have notified the only talk page project Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#Talk:Frankie_Rayder.2FGA1 for whom she is more than a low=importance article of the organizational quandry.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You could also try notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin, and WP:GOCE. I will do another review after the GA hold period is up. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think we would be more likely to get a second opinion with a Second opinion request at GAC. She is low importance to the other projects.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I am not asking for a second opinion on the GA Review itself - rather more fresh eyes on the article for copyediting. Two different things. Unfortunately the article in its current state is not GA. The GA Hold period will be up in another day, but I can allow for more time if it is undergoing copyediting by an editor previously uninvolved with the article. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you strike resolved. I am not sure what you are saying is wrong with the article, which is why I am unable to correct your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I can look over the article in about 12 hours, assuming that my internet connection doesn't go away caused rain that's coming in. I'm part of WikiProject Wisconsin, and I'm a fresh pair of eyes who has reviewed several Good Article candidates. I'll copyedit and comment on the article structure. Royalbroil 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)@ Royalbroil - Thanks so much for offering to take a look - please take a look at the points I have raised on this page and then keep us posted back here. :) Cirt (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional points to address

1. Copyediting, preferably from one or more editors previously uninvolved with the article.
2. Improvement on flow/readability.
3. Odd structural format - per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a summary of the article, and yet there is this awkward second summary in the article's body itself Career summary. Also Career highlights sounds awkward as well, should just be one section Career in chronological order.
4. Personal and family - appears out of chronological order - the "family" info should ideally be up with Early life.

Please respond below. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. Your sudden copyediting complaint seem arbitrary and without substatiation. I.E., in almost all cases where this is requested a list of substantial errors is enumerated. Here after putting my through hoops of creating redlinks, etc. you suddenly claim this arbitrary fault.
   2. See above.
   3. It was previously structured in one Career section and changed upon your request.
   4. This personal and family stuff is not early life info, but rather how her family effects her career. It deserves a separate section and even has a FU image.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts by User:Royalbroil

• The "career summary" section seems out of place. First you talk about what she's done, then you get into the details. It's backwards - you should talk about her details, then provide a summary. Even better, this should be renamed. It is really a list of modeling agencies and magazines that she has appeared in. It is too much detail for the lead, so it shouldn't be placed there. In racing articles, I've often provided a list of awards that drivers have received (example)- maybe this section could be adjusted/renamed to fit that form.
  • How is that?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your question. I was suggesting that maybe you could retitle the section and move it below the details section. It looks like you did that. I like how you retitled as "Notable affiliations and appearances" and you moved it below the "Career highlights" section. I'm satisfied. Let see what Cirt thinks about it. Royalbroil 05:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Rayder is, along with Cheryl Tiegs and Melissa Keller, one of several Minnesota models who have made a name in the Swimsuit Issue." - she's from Wisconsin! You could say ..."Minneapolis area" models...
  • Since Tiegs is from Western Minnesota, that change is not correct. I have changed to "models associated with Minnesota".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Good. Royalbroil 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Rayder's sister, Missy Rayder, is also a model.[1]" - that's about the 5th time is got mentioned in the article. I don't think it's needed.
  • Correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Rayder is a knowledgeable Boston Red Sox fan.[50] She is also a Green Bay Packers fan.[5]" could easily be combined into one sentence - it's too choppy.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• I've always encouraged redlinks. There was recent article in the signpost talking about how redlinks are the future and how they are the best way to get Wikipedia to grow. WP:REDLINK says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."
  • To a point, I agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, only to a point. Royalbroil 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• I looked over flickr for pictures - they are all not original and not suitable. No images on Commons.
  • Unfortunately correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overall it's close to GA, just a little needed. Royalbroil 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm satisfied that it meets GA criteria. Royalbroil 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

Why does the article need to be chronological? Lots of good and featured articles are topical. This article was done topical. I normally do and like chronological order, but on my first GA attempt I was pushed by an experienced and knowledgeable mentor into doing the Mario Andretti article topically. It survived a recent GA evaluation. I do agree with Cirt that her notable sister, who she has been associated with, should be included somewhere in the lead. It's very rare for someone other than the main reviewer to pass an article. Are you sure that you want to yield the decision to me? Royalbroil 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, yes I defer to you on that decision, as I stated on your user talk page. The sister is already mentioned in the lede - and then does not appear again until the very bottom of the article - despite the fact that she was conceivably born prior to the time period of the events discussed in that subsection (2002). The body of the article's chronological order at present is: 1992 through 2009, then the next subsection is 2000 through 2005, and then 2002 through 2005. Very disjointed and a jarring read. Sure if it were a topic about something else, chrono order within each subsection, with each subsection ordered topically or thematically would be okay - but this is an article about a person. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll need to read it again. I'll watch for the problems that you have outlined. I'm need some time, I have a busy weekend planned. Maybe I can sneak it in some time. Royalbroil 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Second reading

• This sentence has way to many thoughts in it - please break it down a bit (maybe 2 sentences would be about right): "She was a covergirl for numerous high fashion magazines, has appeared in the Victoria's Secret fashion show for four years, has been included in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue twice, has performed in many runway shows and has been featured in numerous print ad campaigns."
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Attracted by Rayder's charisma" is unsourced, needs sourcing.
  • O.K. removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• The heading "Personal and family" is somewhat awkward and clunky, how about "Personal life" like most articles?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• That's all that I can find. I think that it's fine for a biography to be topical with it more or more chronological in each section. I could see where the family section would be merged into early life, but that would put that subsection out of chronological order. I like the current arrangement better. Royalbroil 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe the article passes Good Article criteria and have passed the article. Royalbroil 01:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)