Talk:Robert McLachlan (cinematographer)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert McLachlan (cinematographer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. I will do my best to get to at least the various parts of the review of the article within a time period of Seven Days... — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Georges de La Tour - Smoker.jpg = Y = image from Wikimedia Commons, review checks out upon inspection of image page. No issues here. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Upon inspection of article edit history = no issues here going back to start of article -- in 2012.
2. Talk page shows absence of problems, as well.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 11, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Please expand lede intro sect, just a tad bit more at least, to function as a better standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD.
3. Please move Accolades sect above Partial filmography sect.
4. Why is it called Partial filmography ? Why partial?
5. Probably relevant to several more categories.
6. Just a great job referencing the Accolades sect, just wanted to say that. Well done.

External links = does he have his own official website?

1. Filmography = would be nice to have a column "Director" and note all the directors he's worked with. Optional for Television, but would really be quite nice for Film.

2. Verifiable?: Simply excellent job here. One minor quibble. Please make References sect its own level-2 sect, and call Footnotes just Notes.

3. Broad in coverage?: Good enough here for GA standards.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a matter of fact tone throughout, no issues here.

5. Stable? Passes here.

6. Images?: Passes here.

#NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this. I've expanded the lead out a little more, mentioning things like Omni and Greenpeace to round it out better. I've added a few more categories—one for his alma mater, his home town, and for working for Greenpeace—and the sections you felt should be moved have been swapped. I'll start working on the film list to add directors now, but for the television work that would mean listing individual episodes which would get pretty unwieldy. As for "partial" filmography, it's because I couldn't get titles or specifics for his TV commercials or the Greenpeace documntaries, and so without those I didn't think it would be an exhaustive list. GRAPPLE ^X 08:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Yeah just filmography is requested, not television-ography. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Added those names now. Surprised to see just how much of his film work was with the Morgan/Wong team; I guess even Hollywood is a small world. GRAPPLE ^X 08:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks much better! Please address above re External links, References sect, and then I think we're all set. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see those. I've now added his official site and re-titled the footnotes/notes heading; I'm not keen on bringing references up to level 2 as it's wholly subordinate to the notes—anything listed there is just the long-form citation for any uses of {{Sfn}} and so it doesn't stand on its own as a section. GRAPPLE ^X 08:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How about making it level-2 and calling it Bibliography. Then I think we're probably close to all done. — Cirt (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That would impy authorship, when it's not a work he has penned but a source being used for information about him; there's a chapter interviewing him but he's not exactly the author. GRAPPLE ^X 09:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay I consulted a recent WP:FA promotion, Laurence Olivier, and also looked at WP:LAYOUT. It appears there's some leeway with how to name/organize these References sects. I stand pleasantly corrected! — Cirt (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pass as GA

Pass as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator Grapple X for being so polite and responsive during the GA Review! Please consider reviewing two articles for every one you nominate, — Cirt (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)