Talk:Peter Ostrum/GA1

GA Review

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

• Listing by 2nd reviewer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 03:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is short. It should be expanded. RRD13 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm particularly rubbish at writing ledes, so please let me know if this expansion makes the grade. If not, can you let me know more specifically where to tweak it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Never underestimate yourself, you have written well ! RRD13 (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• "sixth grade" - which school, which year... information missing.
• "declined the offer of a three-film contract" from whom?
• Why did they took Polaroid photos??
• In his senior year of high school" - to be precise, which year?
• "Lowville Academy" located where?
• Its hapazard. Information about 2010 given first and then information has been given about 2009.
• "Soon after Ostrum returned home from filming Willy Wonka" - in which year?
• There should be a different section for personal life. Include all these about his wife and children there rather than highlighting them in the lead.

RRD13 (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A lot of your requests for more information simply isn't available in the sources. I don't know about which school he was attending, why they took Polaroid photos (I can guess), which year was his senior of high school, and which specific year he returned from filming Willy Wonka.

I assume Lowville Academy is in Lowville, New York, but that isn't explicitly stated in the source; should I go ahead and put it in otherwise?

I moved the paragraphs around a bit in the "Lasting effect" section. What do you think?

As for a "personal life" section, it would just be a one-sentence section stating his wife and children's names and I'd rather avoid that IAW MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Would it be preferable to remove the information from the article altogether and let the infobox stand stead as the only bastion of the information? — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the lead "Ostrum now practices" - What does he practises?

RRD13 (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

He practices veterinary medicine. It's in the first lede paragraph; should I repeat it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Royroydeb any updates? It seems like Fourthhords took care of all your concerns and this GAN been running a month. Thanks Secret ^account 14:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

2nd reviewer

• Following this request, I'll finish off the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• There is no edit warring, but I note that there has been some reverting of IP and newly registered editors. It is not uncommon for some BLP articles to get attention from casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No MoS issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No OR - facts in article are found in sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Well cited, and sources check out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No bias noted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• No section is overly long or over detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Query

• Main concerns in first GAN were in providing enough information. I have slightly copy-edited and added some additional information, but will check a little more before passing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's OK now. There's not a lot to say about this topic, and the article covers the essentials. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• Listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)