Talk:Nicole Kidman/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FormalDude (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will post updates here as I complete the review, which may take up to seven days. ––FormalDude talk 02:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article only makes use of news sources, and quite a few have no consensus on their reliability (per WP:RSP). I'd like to see some references from other sources like books. There's been a number of biographies written on Kidman, but none of them are cited here.

Could it be possible for you to specify which sources are you referring to exactly? I'm not familiar with sourcing books (I'm not sure where to access them and use the information without having to purchase them), but I can try to find better reliable sources to replace the mid-quality ones. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 16:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Film Enthusiast: Specifically of concern are the sources from The Guardian, Forbes, Fox News, and HuffPost. If you can find better sources that would be helpful.

As far as citing books, it looks like you should probably have access to The Wikipedia Library. There's a number of book sources available through there. I think using a book to corroborate some of the news sources would really put the referencing in better shape. ––FormalDude talk 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will try my best to find some books to source. Regarding the sources of concern you've brought up, should those sources be removed if no alternative options are available to replace them? Because per WP:RSPSS, The Guardian, WP:FORBES, WP:FOXNEWS, and WP:HUFFPOST, if I'm not mistaken, are considered generally reliable, as long as they don't pertain to politics and science (which is not even relevant to this article) and are not published by contributors. Would it be acceptable to retain them in any case? — Film Enthusiast^✉ 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Film Enthusiast: Yes, it's certainly acceptable to retain them. I just struggle to see the article meeting the GA reliable sourcing criteria without a book source or two. If you search The Wikipedia Library for "Nicole Kidman" and filter by full-text and books, you'll find a number of sources. Here's a link to that search (I'm not sure if it will work for you or not so you may have to enter that search yourself). ––FormalDude talk 03:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I struggled to find quality book sources from available ones in the Wikipedia Library, as I was looking for those that went into detail about Kidman (most of the ones I found were short and only repeated details already included in article), so I only included two books. The other two references are academic journals, though I'm hoping they're just as acceptable, as they are from well-established credible sources. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a filmography section that lists her works. Creating this also might let you take out that long sentence of her roles from the lede.

Would the 'Acting credits' section be enough, or should I expand it a bit further? — Film Enthusiast^✉ 16:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it should be expanded to include a list or table, that seems to be the standard. ––FormalDude talk 21:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added a column list mentioning a few more of her film credits, including those in the sentence you pointed out, which I now removed. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 23:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in the lede section is too much about her awards/accolades, normally you'd focus on their claim to notability here. Awards/accolades can prove a person's notability, but they are not the reason they're notable (they only come once a person reaches notability, after all). So focus on Kidman's claim to notability, which appears to be the significant role she's played in the film industry. Let me know if you need more specific advice.

Done I reworked the lead sentence to describe what she is primarily notable for. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 02:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more content on Kidman's acting style.

Done I believe what I've added so far might be enough, though I'll continue adding to it if I find more information further on. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add pronunciation of "Hōkūlani".

Done? I'm not sure how this works, but I gave it my best shot. Please instruct me on how to fix it if incorrect. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which earned Kidman attention due to her racy scenes - this sentence is unsourced.

Removed as I couldn't find a source which supported that specific statement. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While not required, I believe the Oxford comma should be used for prose lists.

Since the article utilizes Australian English, I thought the comma wouldn't be applicable here as they aren't used in Australian punctuation, but where exactly do you suggest placing it? — Film Enthusiast^✉ 04:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right, looks like Australian English does not use the comma. ––FormalDude talk 09:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 153 from Popsugar Celebrity is unreliable.

Removed and replaced with reliable source. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 59 from IMDb is unreliable.

Removed — Film Enthusiast^✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 15, 16, 225, and 250 from Youtube are all copyright violations and need to be removed.

Removed and replaced with reliable sources. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 252 from Discogs is unreliable.

Removed with accompanying content as I couldn't find a reliable source supporting the sentence. — Film Enthusiast^✉ 01:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review status

✓ Pass

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed