Talk:Daniel Radcliffe/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Monkeymanman (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Artoasis (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I sampled the career section and spotted the following grammar errors.

   — "Radcliffe opened on 27 February 2007 in a revival of Peter Shaffer's play Equus..."  Done

   — "It was announced in the New York Times on 28 December 2007 that Radcliffe will..."  Done

   — "Radcliffe appeared in the television series Extras as a parody of himself, as well as filming the independent Australian drama December Boys..."  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   — Self-published/unreliable sources: Contact Music, monster and critics, Celebrity Net Worth, DanRadcliffe.com, InterfaithFamily.com, Isbi Schools, Radar Online, Musical Cyberspace

   — "Award" section lacks reference

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The "Career" section is reasonably focused, but the "Personal life" section is a bit too heavy, with trivial information such as the amount of money his T-shirt raised (£520) or where he spent his 18th birthday and how he "queued up for the autographs" of some players.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Since it is currently locked, no edit wars are observed.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think the article still needs a fair amount of work to pass for GA.

Notes

• From the first glance at the refs make sure they are in the correct MOS, i.e. using the same style as much as possible. Also refs that can be found in print (for example papers, magazines) should be in italics, websites should not.  Done
• I would also check that all websites are from recognised reliable sources. I am not too sure about (and perhaps it would be best checking) Radar online, monsters and critics, the daily beast, interfaithfamily, film dates, fandango, hpana (amongst some others)
• make sure that the ref for The Actors' Studio is completed correctly. A link to youtube i not correct. It should inlude the series number, episode and if available (and if you know) the approximate time that the ref is taken from the episode.  Done
• there are no refs in the awards section at all, i do not think this is appropriate for a GA.
• for the quote in the personal life section i dont think it is appropriate to use that convention on a quotation that is that long. Perhaps in line quotation would be better.
• where appropriate, citations should be at the end of sentences.  Done seems to be anyway
• many areas have numerous citations included together when normally one would suffice
• there is one disambig that needs fixing for Gershon. Done removed
• there is a link for jewreview.net that appears to be broken (also is that reliable??)
• has the article been the scene of continued edit wars and vandalism (just wondering if / why semi page protection is required)  Done dont think its a problem
• i am not too sure if the info on what music he likes is totally relavent or if it is all required. (perhaps could be discussed)
• also there seems to be a lot of info on how much money he earns / is worth. Is this relevant for him and is it required in its entirety?