Talk:Keanu Reeves/GA2

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MSG17 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the coming week to see if it is fit to be a GA. Thank you for your work, and for covering this interesting actor. This is my first review, so feel free to comment and give feedback if you think I am doing something wrong, or just in general.

Writing

edit

Overall, the prose is pretty good, and the coverage of the subject is broad. Earwig doesn't detect any copyvios - most of the results are phrases and direct quotes. A unique thing I really appreciate the note next to his nationality - a great way to avoid the brutal disputes that can happen over a subject's nationality. I do have some minor concerns, however:

  • Born in Beirut, he grew up in Toronto. - seems like a rather short sentence, could be merged into one of its neighbors in the lead
  • ability to establish rapport with his manner sounds pretty stilted. I think deleting with his manner or phrasing it another way would make it clearer.

One more item:

  • Although Bill & Ted Face the Music had mixed to positive/somewhat above average reception according to its article, this page only lists one negative review. Same issues with The Last Time I Committed Suicide (although the quote is pretty interesting, I must admit). More complete coverage on that and (if possible) more info about his latest role in the most recent Spongebob movie would be appreciated.
    •  Y I've added a positive review of Reeves' performance in Bill & Ted and The Last I Committed Suicide to balance it. Do keep in mind that this is a biography of Reeves, and reviews/details should be focused on the subject to prevent it from being out of scope. If the user wants to read more about the reviews of the film and performances, then they can view the film's article. Secondly, I'll dig around about his role in the Spongebob film. His role is quite small, so it's usually sufficient just to give it a short mention. If there's something interesting, I'll add it. Thanks, L150 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lizzy150: True. I just wanted to make sure the article was neutral was up-to-date for his most recent movies. (Also, I now understand small and recent Reeves' role is in the Spongebob movie, so ignore my comment about it.) Thank you for accepting my feedback and improving on it with great prose. I only have one last thing to address before promoting:

  • The time-travel thing is kinda sudden and isn't really connected to the paragraph it's in. I think it's unnecessary trivia and should be deleted.
    •  Y Agreed, I've removed this trivia. On the paragraph below, I've added this sentence: "Reeves' appeared on the annual Celebrity 100 list by Forbes magazine in 2001 and 2002, at number 36 and number 49, respectively." I think this is a worthy mention for "In the media". Thanks L150 14:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing

edit

Most of the citations look pretty good, with good usage of reliable sources and the standard inline citation structure. I don't see any original research - all statements are cited. I will look into them more in depth later, but I already see some issues. The refs in the lead and early life section, especially for Reeves' name (1-3) and nationality (6-10) have the most obvious problems.

  • Although WINM is (presumably) taking articles from reliable sources, I still think as a fansite it doesn't not have adequate verifiability. I have similar concerns with keanu.org. These should be replaced with reliable, third-party sources (such as links to the articles from the original sources) as much as possible. I have already done so for ref 20 (Keanu Reeves on directing for the first time - Philippine Daily Inquirer).
  • Ref 1 needs to modified to give more details, such as publication date, access date, and indicate that it comes from The Tonight Show and is not a random clip from YouTube. I would also recommend including a relevant timestamp or quote.
  • The works and/or publishers for refs 11, 56 and 57 (edit: expand that to all Rotten Tomatoes links) are needed.
    • Sources have been revised - I've removed all references to WINM and replaced them with a reliable book source(s), eg. [1]. I agree that WINM was used lazily, and should be avoided where possible. I've added all the works/publishers too. L150 13:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Great job with revamping the prose and the citations. I have been able to look more closely, and here is more feedback I have:

  • Collider is linked to the Wiki article inconsistency in the source (work/publisher/newspaper) field in inline citations; all instances of a certain work should be either linked or unlinked.
  • I still see four refs linking to WINM, are you able to replace them?
  • PopDust and AnoNews don't seem to be very reliable sources; can you find better ones?
  • For bylines with just "Staff Writers" or "[publication] Writers", you (edit: either should set the "author" param to the relevant classification instead of filling in "first" and "last") shouldn't put anything in the author spot.
    •  Y Sorted. I did a bit of rewording about his spiritual beliefs in the personal life to match the new sources. Thanks, L150 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Great! The refs are passed.

Stability

edit

No significant daily changes here. Passed.

Images

edit

Nice use of images of Reeves throughout his career in the page. All images are free, so no qualms there. Thus, the image criteria have been met. I would like to see some pictures of Reeves in the earlier stages of his career, particularly before he grew a beard, but as it is hard to find free images for that time period and the earliest free image on Commons of him is from 2006 I do not think this is feasible.


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