Talk:Reborn doll/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I am going to review your article.

Read the second and third paragraphs of comments I left before doing paragraph one.

One thing this article needs is a good lead. See WP:Lead, or basically, the first section above the article (it starts with "A reborn doll is a manufactured vinyl play doll") needs to be a summary of the entire article. Maybe put in a 0-2 sentence overview of section, depending on how long and important each is. With an article of this length, I would aim for 3-4 good size paragraphs of summarizing in the lead.

Another issue I'm seeing is that all your sources may not be reliable. The rules are at WP:RS. I think you may not enjoy this part, because it looks like a lot of the sources are not allowed. All is not lost, though, because the article is so long. You can just remove anything that's attached to unreliable source, and the article will be shorter, but still eligible for GA status. First, all references to stores probably have to be removed. We can discuss these, and I'm doing this very quickly, so I may not be correct about all of them, but here's a quick rundown. Looking at this version, so we know which number goes with which reference. The good ones are: 3,4,5,7,15,16, maybe 17 but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55. The rest are probably a no go. Wine & Excrement is actually a joke site.

I imagine that you're working on a deadline, and don't want to spend forever working on this article. The fastest thing you can do is just remove every sentence that isn't backed up by the references I mentioned above. Then move around what you have left, and put it into about 3 or 4 sections. Write a lead that summarizes what you have left, and depending on your writing abilities, you may be good to go. Ask any questions here, and I'll try an answer them quickly. I might be able to help you find a couple refs if you can't find one on some important thing. I'm going to ask for more input on reborndollhouse.com, since you've used it so many times, and if it can stay it will make it much easier. I asked here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the input. We agree that there is a lot of info from fan sites that need to gotten rid of. My group and I are going to get going on either getting rid of unreliable information or seeing if we can find better sources to support the information. However, I was a little with this statement "The good ones are: 3,4,5,7,15,16, maybe 17 but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55. The rest are probably a no go." You listed one of our news sources as okay but pretty much all our other ones as unreliable. Because I was confused I took this issue to our prof, who did say that news resources were borderline but he took a look at what we used and said that he would determine them as acceptable because many are mainstream news sources, and also some are used more to illustrate such as the media section where we say that doctor Phil had a show about it and the link is set up to show the reader that Dr. Phil did in fact have a show about it and it was in the media. Lastly, there is not much academic resources on this subject, so the news resources are about all we have to go on. Is there maybe a way we could restate the sentences so the news sources would be more acceptable? If so could you provide an example of how? Thanks you--KayPet (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say all the news ones are OK. Which news sources did I not list? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sorry its probably just a misunderstanding. I was just confused when you said "but probably not, 20, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55" because those are all the news sources like abc and msnbc.Thanks again--KayPet (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpreted the statement - that comment was attached to ref 17, like so: "...maybe 17 but probably not...". I think the others were all deemed OK. Mind matrix 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. Only 17 is iffy out of the bunch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes, and left an outline for my group on these changes below, if you could take a look and tell me what you think that would be helpful. Also, if I could get a verdict on the Reborn Doll House site I'm not really sure what to do with that stuff yet. I've been frequently looking at the help page you linked too but the only response so far is my teacher who is torn, because there is not really other resources that cover the fabrication and such thinks to that extent. Thanks for your help--KayPet (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not going to get an OK, I'm pretty sure. I just wanted to check since it's used so many times. This NY Times article talks a bit about construction, if you want to use it. I would remove all the reborndollhouse.com references, and do whatever kind of paragraph you can with the NY Times article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I'll work tom on merging together different sources along with the one you've suggested to get as close as i can to the detail we have. --KayPet (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If corroborated by NYT, I think the reborndollhouse.com source could be left, as it may be useful for some readers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best if reborndollhouse is just used as an external link, even if the NY Times says the same thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would the for dummies series of books be considered a reliable source? thanks--KayPet (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's OK for talking about Reborn Dolls. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]