Talk:Bonny Hicks/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Skomorokh 12:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I generally conduct reviews as follows: comb through the article and make points or raise questions on a section-by-section basis, and once concerns arising from this are resolved, judge the article as a whole against the standards. If the article falls short, I am happy to give time to the principal editors to get it up to scratch. Skomorokh 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...the copyediting and proper reference formatting is very appreciated! Newenehpets (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Remarks

Lead section

• What is meant by "anthropic" philosophy? The linked anthropic is a disambiguation page. I am reasonably familiar with this field but do not understand this reference at all; the average reader has even less of a chance. This needs clarification.

The disambig page contains a dictionary definition. Part of reading an encyclopedia article is learning new vocabulary. The word is wholly precise and stands as is. Newenehpets (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• At the end of the section, the live Citizendium article is cited. I note that a) Citizendium is an open wiki with user-generated content b) the cited article is substantially similar to this one, to the extent that one must have been a fork of the other at some point. This raises a few problems; that article is in no way a reliable source, and the citations to it must be removed and replaced. It also suggests that the sources used for this article have not been properly vetted.

This is done of convenience; I'll tidy things up in the refs last. Newenehpets (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The use of a quotation in the infobox is unorthodox; it comes across as somewhat unencyclopaedic, being more fitting to a memorial or sentimental obituary. I don't think it's a problem for GA status, but it may be worth bearing in mind that other editors may object down the line.

Removed. Newenehpets (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The closing line "her legacy is now understood as important" comes across as vague and leading. What was her legacy? Why was it important? The lead section should act as a complete summary of the article, not just a teaser.

Spelled out now. Newenehpets (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Background and modeling

• File:Bonny-hicks-go-mag-1987.jpg does not have a satisfactory fair use rationale. Our non-free content policy demands, among other things, that "[n]on-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image description page does not make a convincing argument that this is the case here. The same can be said for the other non-free images in the article; there is a lot of work to be done here. For an idea of what is required, you might take a look at the non-free images in recently promoted biographical featured articles. Skomorokh 05:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Pic has a good fair use rationale. As with all deceased people, it is important to show their image at pivotal points in life, because visual images naturally couple with text in the brain to increase understanding and retention. The image is THE COVER that launched her career. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "She identified her formative social environment as...". This is a little abrupt. When is this identification supposed to have taken place? If it was in her later writing and that fact is noteworthy, spell it out, i.e. "In her 19xx biography Name of Biography, Hicks identified". If its an unremarkable fact or well-established by a secondary reliable source, just state it as fact, i.e. "Hicks' formative social environment was...".

Fixed by removing the text and making an assertion. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• The article is inconsistent in its approach to spelling out numbers. Here you have two digit numbers represented as numerals – "When Hicks was 12" – whereas before it is written "She was killed at age twenty-nine". WP:ORDINAL advises to use words, but at the very least the choice needs to be consistent.

Fixed - written numbers for age throughout. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "When Hicks was 12, her mother accepted a job as a caretaker of a bungalow in Sentosa and they relocated to the island away from a Singaporean Housing and Development Board flat in Toa Payoh." This is a little rushed and convoluted for an overview of her early years; it's might be better to introduce the first state – living with her mother in the SHDB flat – before the change to the second. The reader is also left wondering where Hicks' father is at this time, and the explanation for this is left to the end. It would be an improvement to start with "Hicks' was raised by her mother, and spent her early years in _____. When Hicks was twelve, her mother got a job in...." or similar.

The narrative is chronological at this point. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• It might be worth mentioning what type of agent Chan was (i.e. acting/sport/music/fashion) when introducing her to the article.

Since Hicks was a model, it is to be inferred that Chan was a modeling agent. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Hicks and Chan enjoyed a special relationship". What purpose is the word "special" fulfilling here that the rest of the article does not?

The term is perfectly vague to describe the contours of a relationship that Hicks herself left vague. The article describes this vagueness and discusses the possible contours. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Stemming from ambiguous statements Hicks later made in her first book, speculation was widespread over whether the two had become sexually involved". Did the speculation only spread after the book? The structure of this sentence is confusing. If you can say anything definitive and verifiable about their relationship or the perception of it at that time, do so; if not, make that clear by introducing it like "After an ambiguous statement in Hicks' book ____ published x years later, speculation arose as to the nature of her relationship with Chan."

Changed this to "popular speculation" because it was rurmor. The article describes why this speculation was there, possible alternative interpretations, and Hicks' support of continual rumoring about it. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can we name/link the "popular Singaporean fashion monthly" in question?

Done. It was GO. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• What kind of advertisements was Hicks in? Magazine/tv/radio? For someone known as a model, it would be good to have a little depth in the coverage of her career.

Changed this to "print advertisements." Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Similarly, a word or two about what the two books were about would be helpful for context. They are dealt with at length in "Literary contributions", so you need not go into multiple sentences in this section, but a few quick explanations would not go amiss.

Adequately covered now. Newenehpets (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Copywriter seems a lowly position for a successful model and author to take/aspire to. Some explanation would be helpful here.

Changed to "department lead and copyrighter."

• Her marriage and another major relationship are dispatched in two abrupt sentences; elaboration as to how these relationships came about, their effect on Hicks, and so on, would alleviate the disjointed experience of the reader here.

Added teaser about what is to come about this in the crash section. Other than that, I've given as much detail as sources allow. The section on the crash fills in all available details. Newenehpets (talk)

Literary contributions

• This section is quite strong; the brief yet clear treatment of the reception of 'Excuse Me, Are You a Model?' is particularly well-handled.

Thanks. Is improved now, too. Newenehpets (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Two more non-free images with inadequate fair use rationales here. The rationale for File:ExcuseMe.gif (which is too small to make out the text, and in an inadvisable file format) states that its purpose is "identifying the book along with critical commentary on its artwork", yet the paragraph contains no critical commentary on the artwork. The rationale for File:Bonny-hicks-1992.jpg states that "it is needed for key educational purposes", which seems dubious. Again, both these would seem to fall afoul WP:NFCC8.

The key educational purpose is that visual images increase learning from text. It's how the brain works. Newenehpets (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate if there is reticence about going into too much prurient detail about the sexual content in 'Excuse Me, Are You A Model?', but since this section makes such a big deal about it, it might be good to give some indication as to the nature of the controversial material. The section makes it clear that Hicks' discusses her sexuality in a way that was uncommon, but not whether there was anything remarkable about the content of those discussions (i.e. non-standard sexuality such as bisexuality or polymory). A brief nod would be of help here.

Well, it was more tales of sexual exploration and exploit. The key point is not the details but the broaching of the subject in general. Too, I am trying to be sensitive to some Singaporeans who will read this and see quite enough detail already. Newenehpets (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• A lot of claims here are made without attribution. In general, that is a good thing (constant he said/she said can be tiresome), but it's better to occasionally name and quote the source of statements, particularly in more subjective realms such as the reception of literary work. I'd be inclined to give the reader an indication of who it is that thinks the book is "a significant milestone in Singapore’s literary and cultural history", or who the "one traditional reviewer" was.

These are well cited. Newenehpets (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• What happened to the third book? The section leaves the reader hanging here.

Added "The book never ultimately materialized" and placed that paragraph at the last. Newenehpets (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Future plans and crash

Clearing up the relationship between Tsu Way Ming (Silkair 185 pilot) and Bonny Hicks.

First the article says that Ming was a friend of Hicks' first husband:

"As the crash investigations continued, investigators discovered that Hicks' ex-husband was a Republic of Singapore Air Force friend of Tsu Way Ming,"

later on that paragraph it changes to Tsu Way Ming being Hicks' husband:

Indicative of full premeditation, Hicks' ex-husband had taken out a large life insurance policy on himself that went into effect just hours before the crash.[3][21]

In another paragraph later on, it is again said that Hicks and Ming had been married:

"As a side-effect of Indonesia's findings, the life insurance policy of Tsu Way Ming, Hicks' ex-husband, was paid in full to his survivors—to his second wife and their children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.13.38 (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath of death

The information presented about the crash investigation and aftermath doesn't seem to have much to do with Bonny Hicks, and is one-sided, with much of the information about the pilot being misleading, and by disregarding the 2004 lawsuit in which a part was found to be defective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.229.109 (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Some of the footnotes reference an identical article on a website called citizendium.com. The two pages are therefore presumably written by the same person or persons. Obviously it is absurd for an article to reference itself somewhere else, and consideration should be given to editing portions of the article accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wochee (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Review

Pending until the above issues are addressed. Skomorokh 05:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How is the review progressing? Looks like not much has been done, most of what has has been by you. It might have to be failed if it doesn't move quicker. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

On hold 'til the primary contributor finds time to address above comments. If you or the people at GAN want to kill it after a certain length of time of little progress, that's fine with me. Skomorokh 13:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly a month and the reviewer still has not addressed any of your concerns, it's pretty much the definition of a failed GA, so I will do so now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the definition of a person who's had a busy stint in life and will return here ASAP! Newenehpets (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)