Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Judy Garland

Judy Garland

I feel the article on Judy Garland is one of the better biographical articles we have on Wikipedia, and I would like to see it progress towards Featured Article Status. Any comments, suggestions, critiques to help us move this article in that direction are greatly appreciated. --Ozgod 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Ozgod. I have watched this article for some time now, so I can probably give you some idea of improvements that need to be made before you could consider submitting it to FAC.

• Get rid of the external jumps in the article. The should be turned into footnotes or external links at the bottom of the article. They are not permitted for FAs.
• Further to footnotes and references, you need to have a lot more. The rule of thumb is at least one per paragraph, and more for any assertion that is likely to be challenged.
• The "See Also" section should be expanded.
• The External links section should be pruned. There are far too many for a FA.
• Biographies should be a sub section of further reading. Also, if you used any of the books in the Further Reading or Bio section as refs, they should be noted and removed from the Further reading section. They can be used in one place or the other, but not both (Same goes for web links--if you use them as refs, you can't use them as external links).
• Assuming marriages were discussed in the article (and they should be), then the marriage section at the end should be removed.
• Check the Filmography. Make the red links wikilinks. Some already have articles attached (I have changed a few, but didn't go through the whole list).
• Article becomes very listy in the second half. See what really needs to be included, and what is redundant.

I am sure there are lots more suggestions I can make. These are just what I could think of off the top of my head. It is an excellent idea, doing a Peer Review for this. I suggest after the improvements from the review are implemented, it is submitted for GA before FA. As things stand at the moment, there is far too much work to be done to even consider it as a FAC. By the way, you might want to check out Bette Davis to see what a FA actress bio looks like. Jeffpw 19:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit

• Massively undercited if you want to go for FA. All major claims needs a citation, especially quotations and rumors. I think the previous reviewer mentioned this.
• I think that you should expand the lead so that it reflects the article as a whole. As I understand it, the lead is a summary of the article. It should also probably be longer for an article of this size. WP:LEAD
• I feel that there is far too much attention paid to Garland's appearance in the "Movie Star" section. The "girl next door" bit becomes repetitive and there is no equally in-depth discussion of her acting or singing. In fact, there is no real analysis of her acting or singing in the article at all.
• The "Ancestry", "Unfinished films" and "State" sections seemed superfluous to me. Much in the "Continuing Legacy" and the "Song Tributes" sections also seemed superfluous to me. Like the previous reviewer, I thought that the article had a lot of lists. It was interesting up until that point. What can be cut?
• Interesting. This is the first article I've seen where a woman's marriages are tacked on at the end (usually that happens in biographies of dead, white men). Since you mention them in the narrative, why not include this information there?
• Please don't use television specials or PBS series as references - they are hard to obtain if someone wants to check your facts.
• Why all of the red links? Do you really think that all of those things should have their own page? You might think about de-linking some of them.
• Prune the external links if you want to go for FA. Awadewit 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)