Talk:Lizabeth Scott/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say the authors (from the history I think mostly one author) of this article have done a tremendous job collecting copious information and sources, and compiling it into a generally coherent narrative. With that said, the content is simply too long and detailed for an encyclopedia article. Even after the filmography and critical reception have been split into a separate article, this one is over 12,000 words. That is without counting the footnotes that sometimes contain additional content rather than references. I can't see how I could pass this on criterion 1a ("clear and concise") or 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). I am not familiar with Scott's life and career, so I can't say exactly what are the most important elements to keep, but overall my advice is to cut the article by at least a third. I started a list of specific issues, but I quickly realized it would be so long that it would seem overwhelmingly negative and picky, and I don't want to discourage you from improving what is in some respects a fine article. So I'm going to discuss just a handful below, to help give some impression of the types of things that seem problematic.

Most critically, anything from an anonymous and presumably self-published website is entirely unacceptable for an article about a living person (see WP:BLPSPS) and should be removed immediately unless it can be cited to a better source. For example, the information about Scott's smoking in note 33. If anything of this nature is retained, the article will fail on criterion 2b.
The amount of side information about her movies, co-stars, rivals, etc., seems excessive. For example, do we really need a list of actresses that are purported to resemble Lauren Bacall? The footnotes here seem to have some particularly off-topic digressions, such as note 176: "Producer Walter Wanger cast Yvonne de Carlo (1922–2007) for Salome, Where She Danced (1945) due to her supposed resemblance to Hedy Lamarr and Joan Bennett, though de Carlo is usually compared to Gene Tierney in facial appearance." What does this have to do with Scott?
Minor events and details that have no greater impact on Scott's life and career are probably not needed. For example, "During the production Scott was a guest at the Odeon Cinema, Leicester Square, London, where the Royal Film Performance of Where No Vultures Fly (1951) played. Along with other Hollywood actresses like Jane Russell, Scott got her chance to curtsy before Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother)." Is this incident even significant enough to mention, much less including what film was being screened, the location of the cinema, and the name of another actress who was there?
Anything that relies heavily on primary sources, such as the minutia of when and where her parents were born. If no secondary source has discussed the discrepancies around this, then it may be undue weight to go into it, and the repeated use of census records gives an impression of original research.
Any time the article goes into a detail from a source that does not mention Scott, it may be headed into unnecessary detail, and could have problems with synthesis. For example, do the sources describing the mid-Atlantic accent (notes 30, 31, 32) mention Scott? If not, why do we need to know these details about linguistics?
Despite the excessive length overall, there are a few places where more material is needed. A one-paragraph lead is too short for an article anywhere near this long (even if it is cut in half). Also, sections that have been shunted to a sub-article should still be summarized briefly in this one.

Given that cutting a long article could be a significant project, I will leave it up to the nominator and other article editors to decide how to proceed. If you think the cuts could be made in relatively short order, I could put the nomination on hold for a week, then proceed with reviewing a shortened version. If you would like more time, I can fail this nomination, which will allow you to work on it longer for future re-nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reedit article[edit]

It would take more than a week to reedit the article to your suggested specifications. You can fail it for now. Thanks your detailed review.Jamesena (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; consider it failed. When you resubmit, you will get a new reviewer, but if there is anything you would like me to look at beforehand to help ensure it is ready, I'm happy to help. --RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the editing is going faster than I thought. The article might be reduced by a third within seven days after all. Your review offered some useful guidelines. Thanks again.Jamesena (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]