Talk:Peter Dinklage/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up to review; expect to complete review by the end of the week. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• I did some copyediting and also replaced some sources that are not appropriate for an article about a living person.
• For the "citations to reliable sources" criterion:
  • Three dead links listed here should be addressed.

Done. All three has been archived. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Footnote 5 uses FilmReference.com which is not recommended as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 93#filmreference.com and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources)

Removed. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• • The sentence "He grew up in Mendham Township, New Jersey, and is of German, English, and Irish descent" is supported with two questionable sources: "Neil Young's Film Lounge" and familysearch.org. The former looks like someone's personal fan site; if there is anything to indicate editorial oversight, I've missed it. The latter is reliable, but runs afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY.

I removed the latter source. I can't seem to find a reliable source that mentions where grew up or his descent. Should I just remove that part? or is this(http://www.uselessdaily.com/movies/peter-dinklage-trivia-22-fun-facts-about-the-actor/#.WDNAWH2FlhY) a good source? - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP, I would say remove if there is no better source. "Useless Daily" seems to be some sort of corporate venture, but shows more signs of clickbait aggregation than of editorial review and fact-checking. (You are of course welcome to ask at WP:RSN for a second opinion.) --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. - AffeL (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• • Footnote 28 does not appear to contain the "Hollywood nonsense" phrase that is given in quotes.

Removed the sentence all togheter. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• For the "broad in its coverage" criterion: The section on Filmography and accolades should have a summary, even if it is only a single paragraph, not just links to the related articles. This is particularly important because some awards are mentioned in the lead section that are not otherwise mentioned in the body of the article.

@RL0919: The awards mentioned in the lead section are in the body itself. Does that section really need a summary?. Because I have been looking at other Good articles. like for example: Leonardo DiCaprio#Filmography and accolades. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the awards; my mistake on that. But the section should still have a summary. I can't speak to every GA review -- one of the problems of the GA process is that single reviewers produces a degree of inconsistency. Since the "Career" section gives a lot of filmography specifics, one option might be to link the "screen and stage" article as the main article under "Career". Then change the final section back to "Awards and nominations", using a variation of the two-sentence lead from the awards article as the summary. --RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@RL0919: Done, I did what you just said. I did some kind of summary for the "Award and nominations" section. is that sentence good enough?. - AffeL (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do for GA. (If you go to FA, the "comprehensive" requirement may require more, but GA only requires "broad" coverage.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Overall the article is pretty good and is only missing on a couple of the GA criteria. I'm assuming the points above could be addressed within a seven-day hold period, but let me know if you think that will be a problem. --RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All issues above are addressed, so congratulations on your latest GA. --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)