Wikipedia:Peer review/Lindsay Lohan/archive1

Lindsay Lohan

I've just finished a significant retooling (merging, moving [this article begged for a chronological treatment], updating footnotes, etc.) and I need input before I consider an FA request. Your responses are requested and welcomed. Radio Kirk talk to me 06:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From just a quick glance, I'd prefer a more chronological approach to the biography, rather than splitting it into topics like Modeling, Television and film and Music, although I'm not sure this is really required for FAs (but it is recommended by Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography, I think). And the References should probably be merged with the Footnotes and use proper Reference templates (see Citations of generic sources). Also, the date links are wrong throughout the article (see date formatting. Also Years in films should not be piped, see Wikipedia:Piped link) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for the date links. I'll research later. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I've reviewed the suggestions that "year in x" not be piped, and I vehemently disagree. As I note on the talk page, "[s]ee Lindsay Lohan for a good example of why piping is a good thing (a simple [[2003 in film]] in line would create clunky, hard-to-follow writing—better to use no links at all)." Radio Kirk talk to me 22:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add 2: No links at all, it is—except, I'm leaving them intact in the filmography, where I think they belong. Also, the update of the references is in progress. Radio Kirk talk to me 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. Input still requested. Radio Kirk talk to me 05:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reasons why the In the media spotlight shouldn't be merged into the Biography section as well (And then probably divide that into subsections such as Early life/Childhood, Early career, Breakthough, etc. or similar). Also, the article's many very, very short paragraphs (most are only one or two sentences) make for a bumpy read. It reads more like a checklist than a coherent article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I disagree; if you think it's choppy now, merging her roles with her real life will be impossible to read. I'll work on the rest. Meantime, I'm reverting your date changes; we just went over unnecessary date inks, and you link them? I'm lost...

When years are part of a full date (e.g. January 23 2003) they're linked, so that user's date preferences work. See date formatting. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I missed that (blush) Radio Kirk talk to me 14:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it is quite confusing. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL well, I've re-linked the first instance of each, except in some cases in tables/lists below, which I consider separate from the main article in that respect. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should be linked on every instance, otherwise the whole date preferences thing doesn't make much sense. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I based that on what I've ssen in other articles, and in the subheader here that reads, Avoid overlinking dates. The notion stated on that page that "some date preferences won't work unless a year is also linked" is silly; date and year links are separate, and only act together when the user intentionally clicks both—and even then, only when opened in separate tabs or windows. All that seems to argue for first-instance linking, do you think? Radio Kirk talk to me 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the user clicks it, date preferences handles how the date is displayed (see m:Help:Preferences#Date_format). The way I understand it the Avoid overlinking dates only refers to partial dates (the paragraph even begins "If the date does not contain a day and a month"). Also, if both day/month and year are linked, there's a comma added between them through date preferences (at least in my preferences). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well... 'salright :D Radio Kirk talk to me 15:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is with style - there are numerous one sentence/two sentence paragraphs - Fritz Saalfeld is right on the money there - and it reads very much like a news report, rather than free flowing prose. There is also an abundance of dates. The media spotlight section - almost every sentence/paragraph starts with "on such and such date". It creates a very static effect. Do we need all the dates anyway? Does it matter whether she suffered an asthma attack on May 1, or October 27... is it actually adding anything to our understanding of the subject? I suggest keep the dates for the major events - even those I think could be covered sufficiently with just the year. There's a lot of fancruft in the article. I know that will be commented upon when it gets submitted for FA consideration, so at this point I think you need to either justify the various points, or remove them. Example - Lohan was Punk'd. Is this significant? If it is significant the article needs to tell us why. If it's not significant, does it need to be included? I get the impression reading the article that it chronicles everything she has ever done, and yet nothing is discussed in any depth, and there seems to be no distinction made between the major and the trivial events of her life/career. Maybe have a look at some of the other featured articles under "Media" and "Music" - there are several actresses and singers listed there and it may help to check them out. Rossrs 15:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just made one change that incorporated two paragraphs, since an exact chronology is probably unnecessary. Punk'd and That 70s Show are included to demonstrate her friendship with Kutcher and lay the groundwork for her relationship with Valderrama. It probably could be better written. I'll work on that, thanks. Radio Kirk talk to me 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completed, with my thanks. Input still requested. RadioKirk talk to me 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a vast improvement - it flows so much better. Could you possibly put a key at the top of the singles chart table to indicate what the abbreviations mean. AU= Australia etc. Some of them I can work out, but some of them I have no idea. Rossrs 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that :) Radio Kirk talk to me 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sales figures and peak chart positions are generally not cited. This is a huge pain in the behind to find the citations, of course, but you know me. :) I'm also not a huge fan of putting the album information in a table like that, I think it could be tightened up a bit. That's all for now. --Yamla 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, argh! ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could her personal life section be expanded? Maybe some information on how she grew up... was she wealthy? Coming from a broken home, is there more that can be added? Maybe talk about her schooling? Just suggestions. :) Gflores ^Talk 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good point, missed that entirely... Radio Kirk talk to me 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Radio Kirk talk to me 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]