Talk:Lizzie McGuire/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Pamzeis in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 03:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply


I'll take this one on. Notify me if I screw anything up. Pamzeis (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Prose

edit
  • teenage years; and an animated — shouldn't the semi-colon be a comma or something?
  • Fixed.
  • Done.
  • The series follows Lizzie McGuire, a 13-year-old girl who faces the personal and social issues of adolescence alongside her best friends, Miranda and Gordo, at — the commas are a tad confusing as it could mean "The series follows Lizzie McGuire (a 13-year-old girl who faces the personal and social issues of adolescence alongside her best friends), Miranda and Gordo, at" or "The series follows Lizzie McGuire (a 13-year-old girl who faces the personal and social issues of adolescence alongside her best friends, Miranda and Gordo) at"... y'know
  • I've tried to simplify this sentence by splitting into two.
  • Episodes depict Lizzie's transition into adolescence at home and school, including the friends' rivalry with their classmate, Kate, and affections for Ethan — remove comma before Kate (assuming she isn't their only classmate)
  • Fixed.
  • Kate hope to date. — remove the full stop
  • Done.
  • school. He likes Miranda. — the short sentence kinda feels outta place here...
  • Fixed.
  • had with Lizzie and Miranda ... who does not speak. ... who likes to create trouble for him. ... laid-back substitute teacher whom she perceives as cool. ... Lizzie's nerdy but tough classmate. ... Kate's older cousin. — remove the full stops
  • Removed all.
  • Lizzie" persona; and was also — is the semi-colon used correctly here? I'm not familiar with this kinda use
  • Replace with comma.
  • were produced; a standard — ditto
  • Apologies for all of the semi-colons!
  • star LaLaine and be produced — comma after LaLaine
  • Added.
  • the series was not picked up in favor of Disney choosing — feels a bit clunky; is the "Disney choosing" bit necessary?
  • Removed.
  • In 2014, Duff stated that she would be open for a reunion, and in December 2018, stated that there had been discussions about reviving the series. — the single-sentence paragraph feels kinda choppy. Is it possible to combine it with another para or expand it?
  • Yes, have added to the following paragraph about the revival.
  • Lizzie at the age of thirty, navigating life as an apprentice to an interior decorator, while living in an apartment in Brooklyn, New York City, engaged to a man who owns a restaurant in SoHo, Manhattan — this is a lot of info for one sentence and some of it gets lost. Can this be split?
  • Yes, have split and reworded this sentence.
  • commended the series' realistic representation of friendship and noted its relatability for both boys and girls — seems to run afoul of WP:VOICE
  • Fixed (I think!)

Sources

edit
  • Added source.
  • The last sentence of #Merchandising is unsourced
  • Added source.
  • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • LukeFord.net
      • This is an interview source. It provides a lot of the #Production information, but I can remove it if required.
        • OK, seems fine for GA
    • DVDizzy.com (including for reception per WP:INDISCRIMINATE)
      • This is included because it provides an independent review. Please let me know if it is not suitable and I will remove.
        • Seems fine for GA, but is it needed for the first usage (in #Development)? It seems to be sourcing a statement of fact there.
    • Sitcomsonline.com
      • Removed.
    • C21 Media
      • Removed.
    • Premiere.com
      • Replaced.
    • J&L Video Games New York City
      • Replaced.
    • The Gateway Magazine
      • Removed.
  • Spotchecks:
    • ref 23:  Y
    • ref 42:  Y
    • ref 53:  Y
    • ref 65:  Y

Other

edit
  • Nothing from #Critical response is mentioned in the lead
  • Added a sentence.
  • #Home media is rather thin, and the source doesn't seem to justify it being in the article per WP:DUE
  • I've removed this. It was one of those sections fans insisted on included.
  • Not really sure it's necessary to include the RT approval score and consensus in #Film... can we just say something along the lines of "the film received mixed review from critics, who thought the show's fans would enjoy it but found it superficial"
  • Taken suggestion on board.
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

Second look

edit
  • series stars Hilary Duff as the titular character ... and an animated version of the character voiced by Duff — ignoring the embedded clause that I removed (not actually but I just ellipsed it out), this seems pretty clunky and awkward. Can it be reworded?
  • Agreed. Reworded.
  • due to its relatable plot and important moral — seems to state opinion as fact
  • Fixed.

Almost over the edge to GA! Just a few minor fixes, in addition to a comment about the sources above. Pamzeis (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

Third look

edit
  • The series was broadcast in Australia on the ABC. — what's the significance of the broadcasting network in Australia? The source doesn't seem to justify the inclusion...

Mostly seems fine. Just one question and this'll be good to go! Pamzeis (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Pamzeis: Not really significant, so have removed. All addressed, thanks! SatDis (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
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

Fourth look

edit

Nice work!   Passing the article. Pamzeis (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

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