Talk:Judy Sheindlin/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I would like to see the lead expanded a bit - maybe by two or three sentences that help to summarize the article a bit more thoroughly.

   • I've attempted to do that. Happyme22 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • The sentence "But Sheindlin was becoming a rising star, and her fame was spreading." at the end of the Law career section is peacocky and unneeded, IMO.

   • I'm not so sure. I included that as a sort of transition into the next section, and to inform readers that her fame was indeed spreading. Happyme22 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I agree that something like this would make a good transition. However, "rising star" and "fame was spreading" are unencyclopedic. Perhaps change it to something like "After her retirement, Sheindlin continued to receive increasing amounts of public attention."

   • Done. Happyme22 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Judge Judy section - please tell when she was approached by Big Ticket television.

   • Don't know exactly, but I've narrowed it down. Happyme22 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Judge Judy section - "Sheindlin extended her contract through the 2011-12 season (its 16th),". Its 16th what?

   • 16th season. Clarified. Happyme22 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I've added a fact tag in one place where I would like to see a reference.

   • I have hopefully resolved that. The divorce is a well-known fact, but the motives were indeed uncited and I cannot seem to find one at this time. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • What makes Ref #3 (MSN) a reliable reference?

   • I should have clarified; that's MSN Encarta Encyclopedia. The same source is used at other prominent articles, including GA George W. Bush. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • This actually looks to be published by MSN Movies, and written by someone else. How is this reliable?

   • You are correct. I was confusing this with another source. No matter, though, because I have removed the reference altogether. Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

   • While Ref #4 (Judgejudy.com) is reliable for non-controversial facts about her (where she got her law degree, how many kids she has), it is not reliable for claims made about her (such as the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the Law career section) and as such should be replaced in these latter instances.

   • I disagree. This is the official biography of Judge Judy and as such I see nothing wrong with citing it for what seems to be significant and important achievements in Sheindlin's career. Happyme22 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Errrr, yes. Except that it's a biography on a website that is promoting her and her show. That means that everything is going to be shown in the most favorable light possible. Here are the exact phrases I have problems with being cited to this website, and the reasons:

   • She earned a reputation as one of New York's toughest judges. - If she's the only one saying she has this reputation, then it's not a very solid reputation. If an independent source said she has a reputation, that's one thing; if she says she has a reputation, that's a completely different thing.
   • Sheindlin is credited with pioneering the idea of an "open court policy", which allowed members of the public and the media to view the proceedings of court, an uncommon practice. - Really? Who credits her with this?

   • The rest of the things being cited to this I have no problem with, because they are either non-controversial or personal information that she has no reason to try to fudge. However, the above two statements are mainly opinion, and citing an outside opinion (reputation, being credited with something) to the person in question is just asking for it to be biased towards the person giving you the information.

   • Okay, I have reworded it and provided different citations. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are a few prose/MOS and referencing issues with this article, so I am placing the review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   I've struck the comments that are finished, but I still have questions/problems with a few other things. Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

   Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you! Sorry about all the confusion. Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)