Talk:Hilary Duff/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Reassessment

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

Early close due to my busy schedule and at the request of other editors, so a community reassessment may be started. Chase wc⁹¹ 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that this article is still at GA-Class. Delisting it will hopefully lead to major improvement of the article.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

As of 03:26, 11 December 2009:

• Sources 11, 32, 33, 46, 49, 68, 71, and 76 are unreliable.
• Sources 26, 47, 70, and 72 are dead links/closed sites/redirects.
• Sources 39, 40, and 41 do not back up their statements.
• At least six unsourced statements.

If these issues are not resolved by the 18th, this article will be delisted. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you cannot nominate an article for WP:GAR, set a deadline and state it will be delisted. You've nominated it for WP:GAR, now step back and give the actual GAR reviewers a chance to address the content. It is beyond your capacity to do so as the nominator and person involved in a dispute on the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This article as of now does not meet the good article criteria, and I have set a deadline for the issues to be fixed. It will only be delisted if the issues are not addressed by that date, and the issues that this article has (that fail the GAC) have nothing to do with any recent dispute on this page I have been involved in. As an editor who has not made significant contributions to the page, I have the right to determine whether or not this should be listed. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As an editor involved in a dispute over this page, you are not someone who can complete a GAR review. I challenge your ability to do so and would request you step aside to allow someone who is actively involved in conducting GAR reviews. You cannot "set a deadline" for improvements, that is beyond the scope of any GAR reviewer. You have made significant changes to this article by repeatedly removing and challenging content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing one section I feel did not belong in an encyclopedic article with that removal later being reverted is by no means a significant change. With no significant changes to this page, I am not a major contributor which grants me the right to reassess this per WP:GAR. And again, there has been no dispute involving myself that had to do with the issues brought up here.

As for me not being able to set a deadline for improvements, please see WP:GAR: step four of the individual reassessment process states to "[a]llow time for other editors to respond." Editors have clearly responded, and a week is more than enough time for these improvements to be made. And if they are not, this article will lose its GA status. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the diff for the page that declares Razzies.com an unreliable source for its own awards, as you declare Amazon.com, Digital Spy, Star Pulse and Contact Music to be. I would also request you re-check the links you declare to be deadlinks, closed sites and redirects. Source 26 has a new archived link, as do sources 47, 70 and 72. Please tag the statements you believe require a citation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When I nominated this page, Razzie.com forums were being used. If you can find an official page on the website or a reliable outside party source, add it, but forums cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia. Amazon.com occasionally has incorrect information which makes it unreliable as a source; and I'm sure more reliable sources could be found in replacement of the other three sites, as they are (generally) not very reliable.

I will take a look at the fixed references and tag unsourced statements. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, please show the diff that determines these sites to be unreliable. Razzies.com lists their nominations and awards in that section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across any, but I have determined them on my own accord to be unreliable. If there are diffs that show these are indeed reliable, please show me and I will take back that statement. Amazon.com, however, occasionally has user-submitted content that can be wrong. And if that indeed is the case with the Razzies, then please find a reliable outside source, because forums cannot be used as sources here. Chase wc⁹¹ 01:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged 7 statements that need citation, there's still an unsourced statement that was tagged by another editor prior to this GAR, and I found another sourced statement where the reference does not back up its claim. I will take a look at the fixed references later. Chase wc⁹¹ 00:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted an administrator who is active in reassessing good articles. You've said nothing here to inspire confidence in your ability to assess this article in an unbiased manner nor do you demonstrate familiarity with principles regarding WP:RS and WP:GA assessment. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline and it is beyond your scope to set one. Please step aside for someone with greater familiarity with both. This is at least the third time you've threatened to delist this article since you started the GAR. That is unacceptable commentary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand what an individual reassessment is? It is a threat to delist an article from GA status if it doesn't meet the GA criteria. And deadlines are allowed to be set: I've given editors time to respond which is one of the steps of an individual reassessment. As I said, a week is more than enough time to fix the issues. It does not matter if I am active in this field or not, those who are had to start somewhere, no? I do not feel this meets GA criteria which is why I will delist this Friday if the issues are not resolved.

No administrator has taken action, because I am not doing anything wrong here. Perhaps you should stop being incivil and telling me what I can and cannot do, when Wikipedia policy states I can as I am not an active contributor to this article. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with Wildhartlivie here.... Chasewc91's opinions seem bit harsh and biased regarding this article...anyways Let me respond to each one of Chasewc91's queries listed above.

• Sources 32 and 33 are official Razzie Award website sources. They have been added as a source to the statement of her movies getting Razzie Award and what better source can we have than the Official Razzie Award website.
• Source 46 is Amazon.com. Are you sayin that Amazon.com is a unreliable source???
• Source 49 is abt an interview given by Duff to a website....How is that unreliable?? Similary source 68 is Digital Spy website which as per its website is the UK's largest independent entertainment website, having grown over nine years to over 90 million monthly page impressions (August 2008) and a unique audience reach of over 5 million unique users (Google Analytics) Source 71 (starpulse.com) is also Consistently ranked by comScore as a top entertainment/news site and averages approximately 40 million page views per month" according to its webpage...I dont feel there is any reason to believe that this is unreliable source !!! Source 76 is Contactmusic.com which is also reliable.....
• All dead links stated by you have been fixed....
• All tags have been fixed except 2-3 tags which i feel is acceptable....Anyways i am looking into prev versions of the article to get the cites back if someone accidentally deleted it. If no reliable source is found, we can remove those statements.

Anyways I feel that the article is not so bad that it be delisted from GA status. So lets not rush into delisting the article. Gprince007 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be the Razzie website, but it is their forums being used. Those cannot be used as sources here on Wikipedia, if there is not a page on the main website for nominations and winners, then please find an outside, reliable source. Amazon.com is unreliable. As I said previously (or at least I think I did), some of their content (not just their reviews) is user-submitted which makes it unreliable. That reference is just confirming the album exists, so it can just be removed and not replaced, no?

Claims made by the websites are not proof of validity. I have assessed these sites on my own accord to be unreliable websites, especially Starpulse and Contact Music. If they have indeed been confirmed by consensus to be reliable, please show me a diff. Otherwise, they are unreliable. Digital Spy I guess can stay since it's not a totally unreliable site, but a better source would be preferable.

Very busy right now, but I'll take a look at the fixed references later. Chase wc⁹¹ 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been in discussion with the administrator who works on GA articles. I am formally requesting you recuse yourself from this GAR in favor of a community GAR review. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Using a threatening tone with me and being incivil is not going to make me any more likely to change this. I have been in a dispute on this page, but again, the dispute has nothing to do with why I feel this doesn't meet the GA criteria, so I am not biased. It's best that you and other editors just fix this so it can meet GA criteria once more, because arguing with me is going nowhere obviously. Please see WP:GAR; AGAIN, I am not a major contributor to this article which gives me the right to individually reassess this page. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What threatening tone and incivility? You can hear me as I type now? Bolding your comment implies a level of emotion inappropriate for an article reviewer. I formally request that you recuse yourself from furthering the GAR you have initiated on this article in favor of a community GAR review. Please drop your review so a community GAR can be intiated. Your bias is showing each and every time you post the deadline and state the article will be delisted. You've threatened to delist it what? four times now? You have been involved in a dispute on this page immediately preceeding this GAR you instituted. I feel your goal is to delist the article and that, therefore, disqualifies you as an impartial reviewer on this article. Please step down from reviewing in order to allow the community review to occur. You haven't even bothered to notify the major contributors to the article, which is #4 on the list of instructions, nor have you read and apparently paid attention to the rest of the content on that page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Except for Digital Spy and Starpulse, i don't see any overtly unreliable source being used. However, the whole structure of the article, considering that its a biography, is indeed a little tabloidy. I propose that similar articles like Madonna, Janet Jackson or even Rihanna be consulted regarding how to structure a biography and eradicate personal life sections. Then the article would be more than GA, and can likely be considered for FA submission. I don't understand why Chasewc decided for a GAR when he cannot even point out what needs to be changed exactly and what are the lagging points. As I can clearly see, probably he/she has made up the mind to delist the article and that is the approach being taken here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issues raised by Chasewc have been addressed....(See my point-by-point clarification above). Chasewc says..." I have assessed these sites on my own accord to be unreliable websites, especially Starpulse and Contact Music..." Pls note that wikipedia doesnt go by what an individual editor considers "Reliable" or Unreliable" .... and moreover what do you mean by "...I have assessed these sites on my own accord..."....May I know what is the basis of your judgement and on "What Accord" are these sites unreliable.....Pls understand that whatever valid points you raised have been addressed and other than those valid points, whatever other objections u raised seem a bit biased. Gprince007 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems people will not stop until I step down (and I myself am busy with midterms at the moment), perhaps this should be taken to community reassessment. Chase wc⁹¹ 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It falls upon you to close your personal GAR so a community one can be opened. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.