Jump to content

Talk:Justin Suarez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

references

[edit]

Hey guys, I think this article's references are messed up, I just don't know how to fix them, if any willing contributor wants to help, this is your chance...

I think I've addressed this. -- Banjeboi 19:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Justin Suarez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Justin Suarez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Justin Suarez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Uness232 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose is generally quite good, however I would personally incorporate Indelicato's quote into the article. Another nitpick is the term 'sexuality identities', I would replace that with 'sexual identity' or 'sexuality' instead. None of these prevent a pass though, I believe it is well-written all-round. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Lead section is composed of 4 well-written paragraphs, adequate for a good article, while not too long. Formatting is where this article needs some work in my opinion, certain parts of the article repeat themselves a bit too much, reducing detail in lead section might help with this. For example, in the lead: "Deciding Justin was too young to be sexualized, the show's producers agreed that he should experience a gradual coming out as he discovers his sexual identity, opting to leave it undisclosed for much of the series." is written, while a similar statement with a similar amount of detail is written in Creation and casting. Other than that, I believe the paragraphs here are a bit lengthy for a Wikipedia article, but that is just my personal preference. MOS:PUFFERY, words are used, but always cited, which I think is good enough. Overall, when the problems with formatting are fixed, I would happily give it a pass, but for now is on hold. Pass Pass

    Writing this outside the criteria as this just came to my mind, but there are some links that are MOS:OVERLINK, such as "avoid providing a direct answer", which does not need a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uness232 (talkcontribs) 13:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The use of "sexuality identities" was completely a typo; I've replaced this with "sexuality", in the "Critical response" section. Couldn't find any other instances where this happened. I believe a quote box is the best way to use the actor's entire quote without making the paragraphs too long, so I would rather leave it as-is, if that's okay.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've shortened the sentence in the lead to "Deciding Justin was too young to be sexualized, the show's producers opted to leave his sexual orientation undisclosed for much of the series." In doing so, I've also been able to shorten the lead to three paragraphs instead of four. I've also done some additional shortening and summarizing throughout the article where noticeable.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed instances of overlinking that I could find throughout.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So, another quick nitpick, is the word "extreme tactics" really appropriate in the 4th paragraph of Creation and casting? You changed it from measures to tactics, which I guess is okay (I think both are okay), but extreme and tactic together does not really sound encyclopedic to me. Uness232 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Not much to say here, seems okay. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Citations are usually attributed and always from published sources. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Can't see any, everything seems properly cited. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Doesn't seem like an issue. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) It does cover all major aspects. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) While the article is lengthy, the only problem seems to be repetition which I've already adressed in MoS, so this one gets a pass. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Seems okay, there are a variety of different sources with different perspectives, and as the general concensus is that his role is very influential and well-played, I think this is fair. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Only one editor has made substantial edits recently. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The one image used is non-free, but it has a rationale. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Not enough media to judge this with, but looking at the subject matter, finding free-use media might have been difficult. Neutral Neutral
  • Yes, unfortunately free images are hard to come by for this article; I thought about adding a photo of Indelicato's co-star Michael Urie into the "critical response" section since the friendship between their characters was often considered a highlight of the series, but wasn't sure if a photo of an entirely different actor would be considered irrelevant. I also avoided adding a photo of Indelicato himself in the "creation and casting" section, simply because we already have a photo of the actor as the character in the infobox.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass As the minor problems above have been fixed, I think it's safe to say that this is in every way a good article.

Discussion

[edit]

Uness232 Thank you very much for your quick review! I've addressed all your comments and am looking forward to your final verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.