| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think the article almost meets GA standards and may require a proof read and advice on where it is failing.
Thanks, Monkeymanman (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: The nominator does not seem to have any edit history with this article, so it's not clear who, if anyone, will be addressing the points I raise. So I have restricted myself to some general issues, rather than a detailed critique of the prose.
- Cites in lead: although WP policy does not prohibit citations in the lead, information that is covered in the main text, e.g. details of the subject's death, etc, should be cited there and not in the lead.
- Although the article has 100+ citations, a significant number of statements in the article are at present uncited. These include:-
- "Her mother also felt that the name Audrey may have indicated her British roots too strongly – an unwanted asset particularly as it could have attracted the attention of occupying German forces and resulted in confinement or deportation".
- "Hepburn's subsequent first significant film performance was in Thorold Dickinson's The Secret People (1952), in which Hepburn played a prodigious ballerina; Hepburn performed all of her own dancing sequences". (Incidentally, what is a "prodigous" ballerina? I've never heard one described thus before.)
- "Their collaboration in Sabrina developed into a life-long friendship and partnership; she was often a muse for many of his designs and her style became renowned internationally".
- "Although initially feeling that she was badly miscast, her co-star Rex Harrison, as Higgins, also called Hepburn his favourite leading lady".
- – and many more. There are numerous "citation needed" tags spread through the article. As a guide to citing, a rough rule of thumb is: Cite every quotation or paraphrased opinion; cite any in formation that might be challenged or queried; make sure that every paragraph has at least one citation in it; make sure that ever paragraph ends with a citation.
- Stick to reliable sources. For example, www.elham.co.uk does not qualify. Formatting of references needs a lot of attention, too.
- An images expert needs to check out the licencing of all the images and ensure that all of these are free to use. My own knowledge of image copyright issus is inadequate for me to attempt this, but if the article is to be taken forward, e.g. to GAN or FAC, this must be done.
- Aside from issues of copyright, I believe there are too many images in the article. A lot of them are headshots that don't add anything to our knowledge; we don't need repeated reminders of Hepburn's appearance. Why are there two headshots taken Charade (and another with Cary Grant)?
- The article looks pretty detailed, but some of the information smacks of trivia. For example, the (unreferenced) "Pets" section should be removed immediately - it's not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. And the "Misscellaneous" section is mawkish and sentimental - that needs to go, too.
- An encyclopaedia article requires a certain formality of tone. Thus the subject should be referred to as "Hepburn", not "Audrey" as she is in a few instances. One or two other quirks need attention; for example, why is James Hanson referred to as "the young James Hanson"? Was there an old one in the background somewhere?
Thewse are, I realise, fairly general comments, but I hope they will prove helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)