Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes (old)/archive1
Someone added a picture (a drawing, really) a few days ago and that was something I felt this needed. Does the substance need work? PedanticallySpeaking 18:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Good stuff. A few things I saw that it could use: 1. Her girl next door appeal, the famous crooked smile, even a bit of a cult following, not to the level of Natalie portman, but still there I believe. 2. More sources, ideally print, and ideally citing these points specifically. Citing the FHM more formally would be one. A references section is the typical way to do it, though citing specific facts is even better. 3. I believe she has done other modeling, appearing in spreads for men's magazines, maybe other work too. 4. When is First Daughter to premiere now? It only says that it was originally to premiere in Jan. 5. The drawing is great, but the artist that drew the picture could stand to note who he is if he is notable, or perhaps that he is not if that is the case. 6. A proper lead section and even overall sectioning wouldn't hurt. - Taxman 20:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Taxman, for your comments. I will look through my commonplace books for some print cites for you. As for the FHM rankings, I relied on the lists we have at FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2004 and FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 (and other years), which I discovered through the "what links here" function.
First Daughter premiered in September 2004. At the time I wrote the article, a new date hadn't been set and then someone changed that sentence without updating the information. I will do so.
Don't know who the artist is that did the drawing. It's based on a photograph taken by Mark Seliger--see here for the original. I didn't add the picture. While the artist's name is given in the picture information, I don't know anything about him.
Is sectioning really necessary on a short article like this? It seems to me it would unduly clutter it up. PedanticallySpeaking 17:21, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)- I've added a bibliography to the article. I've got a couple more things I want to add to it, but I don't have the cites at hand. There's also a few more quotes I'll put in the article later. PedanticallySpeaking 16:35, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I added the additional cites I wanted, plus a number of good quotes. I put in a link to the original photo and to the Swedish wikipedia. Anything else? PedanticallySpeaking 16:32, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- All good changes. What else you do depends on what your goal is. If you want to get it featured, it is hard to believe it would get that without being expanded. If you don't expand it, you're right, it doesn't need full sectioning, but it at least needs to have a lead section that is distinct. In any case I don't think a few sections like a lead section, personal life, and career would be undue clutter. Also, the article needs to be reorganized. Currently it bounces around and covers things about her appeal in several places, career in others, personal life in others, etc. Clear organization would help the article, and I think the sections I mentioned would help a lot with that. - Taxman 20:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Taxman, for your comments. I will look through my commonplace books for some print cites for you. As for the FHM rankings, I relied on the lists we have at FHM-US's 100 Sexiest Women 2004 and FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 (and other years), which I discovered through the "what links here" function.