Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nellie Kim/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [1].

---

Nellie Kim

Review commentary

Notified Cmapm and WikiProject Gymnastics

While reading the peer review page recently, this PR caught my interest. In it, a reviewer references this article as a good model for female athlete bios. My most-edited article is on a female athlete, and I had never seen this article before, so I decided to take a look at it. What I found was a May 2006 promotion that is sorely deficient by today's standards:

1a: This is my primary complaint. The prose is simply not of featured quality. For example, Kim's entire name, and those of her competitors, are used throughout. There are a load of one-and two-sentence paragraphs, which make the article appear stubby. There are many more examples of questionable prose throughout; serious copy-editing is needed

1b: "Her judging license was suspended by the FIG for a while only once". Excuse me? Do gymnastics judges get suspended frequently, or did something happen that involved her? If so, phrasing it this way is more than a little POV, in addition to not being comprehensive.

1c: A few problems here. First, the links haven't been kept up to date; the link checker shows several dead links. Citation use seems a bit thin—the suspension bit is unsourced, and there is an unsourced quote in Olympics and World Championships, among other things. There are quite a few paragraphs that are uncited or have only one cite that doesn't appear to cover the whole paragraph. Don't know how reliable a couple of the gymnastics websites are, but I'll leave that to the reference experts.

2a: Lead seems short for a page of this length. A two-paragraph lead could probably be squeezed out.

Also, there is a stubby Miscellaneous section that is disguised trivia. Not sure what criterion that falls under, but it needs fixing. Overall, this is not an FA-level article at this time, and should either be improved substantially or delisted. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, prose, and lead. Joelito (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove - The trivia is gone, but otherwise there have literally been no edits to the article. My other issues remain unresolved, and I haven't been given much reason to believe that they will be resolved. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove After looking it over, I agree with this assessment by Giants2008 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Comprehensiveness: as she has published a book-length autobiography, there must be more material available than is detailed in the article. Verifiability: cites required for "compensate with superior technique"; "close to leaving gymnastics"; "a natural smile is more worth, than triumph"; "judging license was suspended"; "to prevent such scandal in the future"; and "This move has been controversial". The alternative spelling of her name, Nelli Kim, should be mentioned somewhere. Dead links should be removed. Unfortunately, I don't think this can be rescued without access to the autobiography, or the Russian-language sources. DrKiernan (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.