Talk:Fann Wong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Fann Wong is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imagerequest parameter from the {{SG}} template call on this page to remove this image request.
This article is also under the scope of WikiProject Singaporean Arts and Entertainment.
Fann Wong was a Arts good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: January 15, 2008
Peer review Fann Wong has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
To-do list for Fann Wong: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Copyedit like hell.
  • Eliminate POV.
  • Find more images relevant to the article.
    • Get a good fair-use image for the infobox
  • Expand the "personal life" section.
  • Clean up the lists at the end of the article to look more presentable.
  • Improve the lead section to conform to WP:LEAD.
  • Cite more references, especially from more credible sources (preferably in English).
  • Request for peer review
  • Nominate for good article status

The "Controversy" section needs to be toned down; she isn't nearly half that controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.198.242 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 April 2005

Any pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.136.205 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 May 2005

Contents

[edit] Push for GA

I really believe that this article has potential to become a good article! As such, I've added a to-do list for anyone who wants to help out. -ryand 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Personal life" section.

To meet the "broad coverage" section of the GA criteria, the article should have a section on Fann Wong's personal life.

What information should we include in this section? Information about Fann's family, hobbies, etc.? Remember, it must be referenced.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voda voda has already added a Personal life section - currently it includes a few sentences about her relationship with Christopher Lee as well as her aversion to the media spotlight. I have a few references that I can work with, I'll add more later. -ryand 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automatic peer review

I ran the article through AndyZ's peer review program, and this is what I got. I'm going to be working on some of these points over the next few hours or so:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-ryand 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

Wow, J.L.W.S. The Special One nominated the article earlier than I thought he would. Nonetheless, I suppose now is as good a time as any. Just a note to Good Article reviewers: if you feel the article does not meet the GA criteria, do give us comments and/or a few days to resolve any issues. Thanks! -ryand 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a reviewer by any means, but at first glance, probably needs to follow WP:BOS Manual of Style for biographies regarding subsquent use of names in which her surname should be used instead of her first name throughout the rest of the article? Looks good. Cricket02 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ryan-D, if a GA reviewer thinks only minor changes or clarifications are needed to meet the good article criteria, they may place the article "on hold", which gives you 7 days to make the minor changes or clarifications. I spotted several minor changes and clarifications that need to be made:
  • The lead section needs to be expanded.
  • The Personal Life section could use some information about Fann's family, her hobbies, etc.
  • I noticed several POV sentences.
Cricket02, Fann Wong's name is an interesting case. She was born as Fann Woon Fong, so her surname is Fann (in Chinese names, surname comes first). When she was 18, she adopted the stage name Fann Wong (this article explains why). A common misconception is that Fann is her Christian name and Wong is her surname. Therefore, the article correctly refers to her by her surname, Fann (which, as a Chinese word, is pronounced "fun", not "fan"). If you still disagree, please state your reasoning.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Addressing these issues:
  • I am entirely aware of the short lead section. I've attempted expanding it a few times - but getting the right balance of weight for each point in the article has been annoying. I'll try again later today.
  • I've actually scoured news reports about Fann Wong over the past five years, and I can't find anything on her personal life other than her relationship with Christopher Lee. Like the article states, she's very media-shy and doesn't talk much about her personal life. I did manage to find a "profile"-type list of her hobbies, but they're all in fansites or celebrity profile sites and I can't find a credible source for them.
  • Please point out the sentences in question, I thought we removed most if not all of the original POV sentences some time ago.
  • I was worried about the last name thing awhile back, and I took the question to WP:BIOGRAPHY, whom I believe said that there was no current convention for usage of the last name in articles of people with pseudonyms (Mark Twain uses both 'Clemens' and 'Twain', other articles use varying conventions). Voda voda pointed out that Fann is her original surname, and I figured we could leave it in until someone with more experience could advise us on what to do.
Cheers. -ryand 03:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding her list of hobbies in most of her fansites, those are actually from the album insert of I Live Alone, her first album release in Taiwan. Not sure, though, how to incorporate a hobbies-type list into the article. Voda voda 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If I Live Alone is reliable, we could add a paragraph about Fann's hobbies to the "Personal life" section, with I Live Alone as a reference. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
It's done! :) Voda voda 10:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

  • She began her career as a fairly successful model, fairly successful is POV, remove it
  • She is currently based in Singapore under the management of MediaCorp., Wikipedia will be read in years and that won't be recent anymore
  • Recent years, rename to 2004-present or something similar
  • Lots of one sentence paragraphs, merge, remove or expand
  • Both actresses are considered '阿姐's in, what is a ??, ?
  • Remove all the '??????????' from the references
  • remove the fan sites from external links
  • She is 171cm tall, according to her fan club(add that in infobox)
  • Please make the shanghai knights image smaller
  • Needs a copy-edit

When these issues are dealt with it will only be the text that needs working on. I will have another read once you have dealt with the issues presented here, also work on the suggestions presented above, good luck. M3tal H3ad 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Fann wong tv.jpg and Image:Fannbook.jpg lack fair use rationale. Also, fair use images aren't supposed to be used just to identify the person, as Image:Fann wong tv.jpg does.--SeizureDog 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the ????s in the references, some of the information currently existing in the Wikipedia article can only be found in those references, that happen to be in Chinese. Nevertheless, I will endeavour to find English references; it probably just requires some time. Voda voda 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
you can use Chinese references but the '?????' doesn't look good, anyway the above issue with the image, you will need to find an image under CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, Creative Commons Attribution or PD (public domain) licenses for the infobox image. Take Sean Bean and Keira Knightley as examples. The image will have to be uploaded to Wikipedia commons too. M3tal H3ad 08:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking a lot better with the references, few more suggestions
  • Fann was also an annual recipient of a popularity award at the Singapore, this sentence should be merged into the body and the other sentence removed as the reward is in the table.
  • Early days: Television stardom in Singapore, is 'in Singapore' necessary?, you mention it in the body and it makes the contents a lot wider.
  • Remove the red wiki-links in the references
  • Split the lead into two paragraphs
  • When you mention her age as 16, write sixteen
  • Still one sentence or short paragraphs
The articles looking better, good work on the references. M3tal H3ad 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the sentence about Fann Wong being an annual recipient of the popularity award, the popularity awards were not mentioned in the table; only the acting/singing awards and nominations are. Nevertheless, I'm thinking of hiving off Fann's filmography and discography into a separate page - to be titled 'Fann's work' (see Jackie Chan filmography for an example of this) - because the page is getting a little long. Would that work? Voda voda 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay I've done it - looks neater. Comments please, thanks! Voda voda 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks a lot better. Goodjob promoted to GA, keep making them improvements! M3tal H3ad 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If i added her name wrong to the GA list, feel free to correct it. M3tal H3ad 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you so much. -ryand 06:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks M3tal H3ad and ryand! Voda voda 14:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue checklist

  1. She began her career as a fairly successful model, fairly successful is POV, remove it
  2. She is currently based in Singapore under the management of MediaCorp., Wikipedia will be read in years and that won't be recent anymore
  3. Recent years, rename to 2004-present or something similar
  4. Lots of one sentence paragraphs, merge, remove or expand
  5. Both actresses are considered '阿姐's in, what is a ??, ?
  6. Remove all the '??????????' from the references
  7. remove the fan sites from external links
  8. She is 171cm tall, according to her fan club(add that in infobox)
  9. Please make the shanghai knights image smaller
  10. Needs a copy-edit
  11. Fann was also an annual recipient of a popularity award at the Singapore, this sentence should be merged into the body and the other sentence removed as the reward is in the table.
  12. Early days: Television stardom in Singapore, is 'in Singapore' necessary?, you mention it in the body and it makes the contents a lot wider.
  13. Remove the red wiki-links in the references
  14. Split the lead into two paragraphs
  15. When you mention her age as 16, write sixteen
  16. Image:Fann wong tv.jpg and Image:Fannbook.jpg lack fair use rationale
I do feel that the 'in Singapore' in the section heading does help to give a better overview of her career. Her early career was based solely in Singapore, as opposed to the period from 1998 to 2004, where she moved into a more regional career, culminating in her Hollywood breakthrough.
Also, regarding the '???'s, I feel that including Chinese characters where they would be accurate and appropriate would better the article as a whole. I'm readding "阿姐" (Ah Jie) to the article in parentheses next to the pinyin, as well as the {{ChineseText}} template. -ryand 11:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Singapore is mentioned ten times in that section, nothing about America mentioned so readers will get the idea. Re-adding the Chinese characters is fine as you have added the Chinese text template. This sentence doesn't sound right 'Fann has, since then, achieved a string of firsts.' I must say i haven't seen such a quick response from editors, goodjob ;p M3tal H3ad 12:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
On the debate on whether to append 'in Singapore' to the section 'Early days: television stardom', I have thought about it and would tend to agree with Ryan-D that 'in Singapore' should be appended. I see a pattern in the whole Fann Wong article that seeks to chart her career according to how her work/influence evolved from being merely local (ie. Singapore) to regional (Asia in the late 90s and the millennium), and then international (after 2003 with Shanghai Knights, Das Haus der Harmonie etc). Appending 'in Singapore' would lend coherence to the subsequent sections. Please let me know what you all think. Regards. Voda voda 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the sentence to read 'Fann has, since then, achieved a series of firsts.' I thought of many other ways to rephrase the whole sentence, but nearly all of them - such as 'Fann has been a trailblazer for the Singapore entertainment industry' - sounded like POV. Regards. Voda voda 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence - it's POV and unneccesary. The second paragraph of the lead section now focuses on the most notable achievements in her career. I suggest you add a third paragraph, summarising the "Personal life" section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Awesome job on the lead. I can't say I've ever seen a biographical article with the subject's personal life in the lead paragraph (it doesn't seem as important as her career to me) but we'll let the more experienced reviewers see about that.
On an unrelated note, is anyone else experiencing gargantuan Wikipedia lag? Or is my Internet just affected by the recent Taiwan earthquakes? I haven't been able to edit properly for days because of it. -ryand 18:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm using SingNet and Wikipedia is only one of the few sites that I've had reliable access to these few days! Voda voda 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm using StarHub. Since Wednesday, my ability to access and edit Wikipedia has been severely disrupted by the earthquakes. Wikipedia pages take minutes to load, often failing to load at all. In contrast to Voda voda, most other sites are relatively unaffected. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely my situation o_O. Weird. -ryand 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My general take on this article is that it is far too wordy and is too detailed. It could stand a thorough going over with economy of writing solidly in mind.

Also, a good bit of the article's details are more befitting for a fan-site than an encyclopedic article. It also seems to rely pretty heavily on primary sources -- the actress's own website -- which is problematic on several fronts.

Don't get me wrong. I realize the "cutting" process can often be psychologically difficult for primary authors, due to their personal investment in the detailed content in their own words. Everything seems important but really is not. CyberAnth 13:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. After adding the 'Charity' section, for instance, I found that the tone in which it was written made for a somewhat unencyclopedic read. I will be looking into trimming and consolidating the article as a whole. Suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance! Voda voda 13:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: I've gotten a Creative Commons license photograph for the article. It took a couple of emails to Fann Wong fansites, but it's done! -ryand 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanntastic ;) Voda voda 16:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life

I understand CyberAnth's rationale for cutting out a lot from this section, but I do think that a large part of it (e.g. Fann and Lee's repeated on-screen romantic involvement) provides important context to their relationship. I've tentatively reverted the edits to the personal life section for now, but let's talk about how to streamline the information in that section. In particular, I'm not too sure about the importance of the bit about the Star Awards - any comments? -ryand 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I would agree that the number of times Fann and Lee have collaborated together on television productions provides a backdrop from which to assess the development of their relationship. I believe the biography would be incomplete without that contextual information. As for the Star Awards 2006, I am of the opinion that it could either be removed, or incorporated into the Christopher Lee article (since the event arose in relation to his October 2006 drink-driving controversy). Voda voda 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit this from the perspective of simply a distant copyeditor who has no predilection for Fann Wong. I never get taken up with personalities. I think that is a very important perspective, to cut down on the tone of this article as part fansite bio and part encyclopedia article.

  • "received accolades"
    • This is a type of Synthesis (WP:OR#SYNTHESIS). The editor is interpreting the news reports with the phrase. Let the news reports speak for themselves.
  • "stardom"
    • Using it makes the tone of this article read like a fansite bio. Use plainly descriptive language, e.g., acting. Also, "acting" is non-interpretive language and appears to the be the pattern with other Wikipedia articles written about actors.
  • Shanghai Knights, directed by David Dobkin...alongside international stars Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson in early 2003,
    • Ugh. The Director, Chan, and Wilson are irrelevant to the article. This article is about Wong, not Shanaghai Knights. "International stars" screams "fansite bio", not encyclopedia article.
  • opposite German-based English actor Philippe Brenninkmeyer and Hong Kong actress Maggie Q.
    • See above explanation. The info is just not relevant. If someone wants to find that info out, that is why House of Harmony is wikilinked.
  • The re-added material under Personal life
    • Why is naming all the films and all the lead actors and all the years and all the series relevant to a discussion of her personal life? It is not. One loses what the topic is amidst all the bog. You are trying to show that Wong and Lee have a romantic relationship. Instead of naming all the films and all the lead actors and all the years and all the series, mention in one sentence that "they have played romantic partners in X number of movies and Y number of TV series", and move on.
  • Fann vs. Wong
    • Fansite bios refer to their subjects by their first names; encyclopedia articles by their last name. Try reading Tom Cruise or John Wayne while replacing each instance of the last name with the first name, and see how it reads. It would read like a bio by someone starstruck, which is not an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia.

It might help to step away from this article for a month and then come back to it with a fresh perspective. Right now, it seems a bit too afflicted with starstuck-itis, giving it something of a non-encyclopedic tone. Following my suggestions may well cut down on it.

BTW, I am expanding Bonny Hicks at User:CyberAnth/Drafts/Bonny Hicks. I do not have access to her books and so am at a standstill right now.

CyberAnth 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "was quoted as saying" vs. "stated:"
    • "was quoted as saying" is like "was said to have said". Both are akward and redundant. The Straits Times's quotation of Hunter is verifiable and considered reliable for WP, so "stated" is sufficient.

CyberAnth 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not a fan of Fann Wong, nor do I think I have any particular bias towards the subject of the article. The information that I re-added, I felt was important to the understanding of the subject. I'll admit that this might be due to a local perspective - the director and co-stars of Shanghai Knights, for example, was included to emphasize the level of success that Fann achieved by breaking into Hollywood - the Singaporean arts and entertainment scene is such that few local artistes achieve regional success, let alone international success.
I don't think that an article has to be dry to be encyclopaedic. One of the requirements for a featured article, after all, is "brilliant prose". Eric Bana's article is a featured article, and it contains information like "In the film he played Sergeant First Class Norm 'Hoot' Gibson, an elite Delta Force soldier, who fights his way out of a battle in Mogadishu, Somalia after a mission to capture two top lieutenants of a renegade warlord goes awry."
You may be right about the stepping away from the article, however. As it is, I'm extremely busy in real life and will be for another week or so at least - maybe I'll be able to see your points better when I come back to regular editing. -ryand 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fann vs Wong

There was a discussion on whether to use Fann or Wong earlier in this discussion page. Here are the three reasons why Fann was retained over Wong:

  • As J.L.W.S. The Special One says, "she was born as Fann Woon Fong, so her surname is Fann (in Chinese names, surname comes first). When she was 18, she adopted the stage name Fann Wong (this article explains why). A common misconception is that Fann is her Christian name and Wong is her surname." So I think the use of Fann is, prima facie, appropriate for the intents and purposes of Wikipedia's naming policy.
  • Ryan-D took the question to WP:BIOGRAPHY, which stated that there was no current convention for usage of the last name in articles of people with pseudonyms (Mark Twain uses both 'Clemens' and 'Twain', other articles use varying conventions). If so, it suggests that as of now, there is no Wikipedia policy specifically mandating the use of Wong over Fann.
  • When finding references for this article, I noted that articles in The Straits Times (Singapore's national newspaper) would reference her as Fann, ostensibly in recognition that Fann is her last name and not her first name.

Voda voda 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had many Chinese students in the past and I learned from them very quickly about Chinese naming and wondered if this was what was going on. There is a totally on-point policy for Chinese naming at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Names. AAR, this case certainly is complicated and I admit I am unqualified to navigate through all of the nuances. I was unsure of the extent or not that her name was Anglicized, or more so that she may have wanted (or allowed) it to appear so. The stage name appeared an intent or an allowance to Anglicize it to me, frankly. I think following how the preponderance of how all reliable sources refer to her is the best way to go, because that is how the most people will recognize her.
I must say that this article clearly exhibits an enormous amount of overall high quality concerted effort. Through recognition of this, I hope it makes Good Article status. I teach writing and other subjects at a college and am fairly knowledgeable about sociological issues in Singapore, and its history and some of its literature, and thus felt I might be a good candidate to "drop in". I hope my coming here has been overall beneficial, and that it offered an outside perspective that might in some way have helped this article achieve GA status. Please do ignore any of my shortcomings. CyberAnth 08:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Feedback that allows us to revisit the article from the perspective of a new reader is always appreciated! As for the name issue, it's certainly beneficial that we now have a discussion on record for future readers to acquaint themselves with the issues we've gone through in reaching a decision on the naming. Having said that, policies are not set in stone so change is probably the only constant in Wikipedia. :) Voda voda 10:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media spotlight

I have collapsed two sections ('Chinese and Taiwanese media relations' and 'Privacy') into one ('Privacy issues with the Singapore media'). On a reading of the material, I felt that the crux of the 1999 controversy involving Raintree Pictures and the Singapore press was not because of the alleged favouritism shown by Fann to the Taiwan media (which in any case was disproved by Ken Lim). The 1999 controversy, in my view, stemmed from the basic disagreement between Fann and the Singapore media as to whether her relationship matters constituted private matters that deserved a legitimate expectation of privacy from the media spotlight. It's the reason why I filed the 1999 controversy under 'Privacy issues with the Singapore media'. Voda voda 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This GA needs an update and a section on how she adopted the name "Fann Wong".

Although Fann Wong is a GA, and I don't believe it can achieve FA status in future, I think I should raise two issues with the article:

  • There is an {{update}} tag at the top of this article. Since the article achieved GA status, has new information on Fann Wong surfaced - new information that has not been added to the article? Is any information in the article outdated?
  • The article could do with a section or subsection on the origins of the stage name "Fann Wong" (we could use this article as a reference).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fannwongchrislee.jpg

Image:Fannwongchrislee.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty sure I covered that with the following text:
"No free or public-domain images have been located for this purpose. While public domain images may exist for the subject of the article, none has been located that is recent, nor do they adequately illustrate the subject's personal life as discussed in the accompanying text;'"
Let me know if there's anything more I need to do. -ryand 14:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must adequately summarize all the major points/headings made in the body of the article; there is currently a lot missing, with the most obvious being the Controversy and most of the Biography seections.
  2. All one-two sentence paragraphs need to be either expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they severely detract from the flow of prose in this article. Sentences leading into a block quote are exempt from this.
  3. The "Works" section needs to provide at a least a summary of the main article that it links to.
  4. The "Awards" section requires citations (if there is a general reference covering these, please point it out to me - I may have missed it)

If and when the above points are addressed, I will return to check the references. I also removed the embedded list tag that was on this article, as no explanation was given for it. If the list in its current state passed for GA in the previous review, I see no reason that the list should be proseified unless the style guidelines have changed since then.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Cheers, CP 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since progress has not been made on these concerns, I will be delisting the article. Once these concerns have been addressed, you may renominate it as WP:GAN. If you feel that this decision was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 05:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently nobody noticed this in time. I notified Ryan-D and Voda voda, the primary contributors to the article. If you further clarify your concerns, they should not be too difficult to address.
  • In my opinion, the lead should stay concise. Only information that establishes context and notability should be included, along with important information such as Fann's romance with Lee. Do point out details from the "Biography" section that you feel should be included in the lead, but are not. With BLP paranoia becoming rampant on Wikipedia, I think the "Media controversies" section should be removed. She isn't that controversial and much of the information is not relevant to her notability; relevant information could be moved to other sections. Do you agree?
  • Please identify these paragraphs. I will see how I can expand or merge them.
  • Due to concerns that the article was becoming too long, the "Works" section was moved to a new article entitled Fann Wong work. Should all the tables be moved back and Fann Wong work deleted (or redirected to Fann Wong)? An extra 5.4 kB would not lengthen the article too much, particularly if the "Media controversies" section is removed per my previous suggestion.
  • Some of the references in the "Biography" section already cover some of the information there. Finding references for the remaining information should not be too difficult. Would you consider Fann's official fan site, Fannatic Fann Club a reliable source?
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Response to concerns, per talk page request:
  1. The technical answer to this is that is a violation of WP:LEAD. The purpose of the lead is to give the reader a good enough summary of the article that they could walk away with a basic (but not detailed) understanding of the subject, having just read the lead. The "why should I ignore all rules" answer to this is that it is not up to us to decide what is "important" about the article and whether or not it should be included in the lead. If it's notable enough to be in the article, then it is potentially notable enough to be included in the lead. Take 1920 Palestine riots, for example, which is currently at WP:GAR. The lead lacks information on the fact that the report on the incident came back and essentially put a large part of the blame on Zionist immigration. We want to include this information in the lead not because we want to "blame" the Zionists or "absolve" the Palestinians, but to present material in a neutral fashion so that the readers themselves can determine what to think of the issue. Maybe the reader agrees and thinks it's not the Palestinian's fault. Maybe the reader thinks that the report was BS and that's there's no excuse. Whatever the case, if we omit the information from the lead, it colours the entire article as non-neutral. It makes a statement that says "this article thinks that the findings of the commission are not important enough to be considered a major part of this event." Obviously this is extreme, and the Fann Wong case is nowhere near this level, but hopefully you get my point.
  2. The first and last paragraphs of the lead, the last paragraph of "Early days: Television career", the second and third paragraphs of "2004" and the first paragraph of "Personal life". Also note that this isn't just an arbitrary "all paragraphs must be of size X". Rather, it is merely a symptom of choppy prose in a "fact after fact after fact" style of writing, rather than a connecting flow. In "Early days: Television career", for example, a lot of the paragraphs literally meet the three-sentence requirement, but miss the spirit of the rationale. She did this then she did this then she did this. It reads more like a list that got crammed together than a work of prose. There are few connecting ideas between sentences, and even fewer between paragraphs in this section. "Personal life" is an example of prose that is at least at an acceptable level — ideas connect and flow.
  3. First of all, the article is less than 30KB currently, so adding another 5 wouldn't be a big deal, per WP:SIZE. Having said that, my actual comment was that a summary, maybe even only 3 or 4 sentences, should be provided of the article so that people know what Fann Wong work is about (especially since that article title is not the best) and whether or not they want to pursue the subject in more detail.
  4. Reliability is relative, at least in my opinion. Louise Glover, for example, uses her myspace to cite things, but nothing potentially controversial or anything that's not backed up by another source. Given Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, I would guess that that site would not be considered reliable for most things, since there's little or no reputation for fact-checking or oversight as to what content gets placed on the website (unless there is, in which case it may be more viable). Cheers, CP 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)