Talk:Trinny Woodall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Trinny Woodall has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 30, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Contents

[edit] Proposed removal of the The Apprentice UK template

I have started a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK proposing the removal of template {{The Apprentice UK}} from this article (and the articles on other celebrities having appeared in the show). Please contribute your opinions to a discussion there. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D.O.B

I have changed the date of birth in the article as judging by this cite:[1] the year that was previously on the article was wrong. I have also deleted the month of birth as there is no reliable source. If anyone could find one it would be most helpful. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for photos

Request for photos sent to [2]. --Zureks 07:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Comments

Overall, I found this article provided an informative and interesting read, however do not feel it can be passed to GA status at this stage. While it does meet the majority of GA criteria, it is also in need of a good, thorough copyedit. There are problems and inconsistencies throughout - a few I noted down for example purposes include:

  • Repetition -
  1. Woodall... was privately educated in private schools.
  2. The 'Background' and 'Personal life' sections seem to overlap to some extent, and I would recommend considering merging the two into one section. Otherwise, at least consider the information it is most pertinent to provide in each - for instance, her schooling is mentioned in both sections, while her grandfather and sister are mentioned in 'Background', but her father and brother in 'Personal life'.
  • Poorly constructed, run on sentences -
  1. Despite working in marketing, Woodall's love for fashion was not suppressed where she would customize her garments from the high street, often by just changing the buttons, to either pretend it was purchased from somewhere else or take pride in saying it was from the high street.
  2. Woodall became prominent in the public view as the co-host and fashion advisor for five series of the BBC fashion-themed television series What Not to Wear, where she co-hosted the show from 2001 to 2005 which involved using her knowledge of fashion and harsh remarks to reform the appearance and style of the many candidates selected for the show with Susannah Constantine.
  3. Woodall was married at her family church called St Columba's situated in Pont Street, Knightsbridge, in a dress made by designer Elspeth Gibson, to musician turned company director Johnnie Elichaoff in 1999.
  • Information which doesn't seem pertinent to its subheading -
  1. She currently pens a weekly fashion column for The Sun with Constantine under Merchandise?
  2. Carol Vorderman commented harshly on Woodall and Constantine in 2003, after they had called her an "overdone Eighties nightmare" and named Vorderman in their list of the 20 worst-dressed celebrities under Personal life?
  • Confusing mixing of 'Woodall', 'She', 'She and Constantine', obscuring meaning of sentences. For instance -
  1. Previously in 2002 she won a Royal Television Society Award (with Constantine), for being the best factual presenter on What Not to Wear. While I understand what the sentence is trying to convey, it could easily also be read to mean that Woodall won the award, as it says, 'for being the best factual presenter on What Not to Wear' - in other words, better than Constantine.
  • Disjointed sentences -
  1. The third series takes a different format and tackles the main fashion issues in Britain. Following a new format, the programme was given the new name of Trinny & Susannah Undress The Nation. What Not to Wear has since been taken over by Lisa Butcher and Mica Paris. On November 5, 2007 Woodall and Constantine appeared on Good Morning America and performed makeovers on three different shaped women for the show. Woodall and Constantine have now revealed that they have dressed in excess of 5,000 women over the course of their career. - jumps back to discussing their current series, as mentioned earlier in the previous paragraph, from there to their previous series last mentioned much earlier in the section, and from there to another topic entirely. Similarly:
  2. Woodall has appeared on Parkinson three times, as well as appearances on numerous other chat shows including This Morning, The View, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross and Richard & Judy. She has also been on Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car, a recurring segment on the BBC Two motoring programme Top Gear. In 2003 Woodall and Susannah Constantine appeared jointly on Parkinson with Meg Ryan, who had a controversial interview with Michael Parkinson, which for several reasons resulted in negative publicity. Parkinson said that he felt her behaviour to his fellow guests Woodall and Constantine, whom she turned her back on, was "unforgivable". - Moves from one topic to another, to another and then back to the original topic again.

These are only intended as individual examples of clarity and coherency problems which occur throughout the article. I'll place the article on hold for a period of seven days, to allow these issues to be addressed. If you believe the article has been sufficiently edited beforehand, let me know on my talk page, and I'll reassess it as and when. In the meantime, well done on an interesting article, and happy editing! Frickative (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time (Frickative) to give an in depth review of the article, it is much appreciated. I think that I've dealt with these issues raised, hopefully enough for the prose section of the GA to be passed. If it is not enough or there are a few more issues outstanding, then hopefully you can alert me and I'll improve them a.s.a.p. Many thanks again. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass

Well done on the improvement made to the article! I've been through and made some edits of my own - as per above, just minor coherency issues - and feel the article is certainly now of a standard to allow it to attain Good Article status. Very much deserved! Frickative (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fashion guru"

Isn't "fashion guru" a little too colloquial for an encyclopedia? Nurg (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)