Talk:Mckenna Grace/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews on Oliver and LWT lists- happy to review this! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pamzeis, done with the review. Just a few small things to clean up and it's ready for GA! Nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My true intention behind reviewing your lists was to make you my slave and feel obligated to review everything I nominated!^{[just kidding]} But anyways, I've responded to your comments below. Let me know if you have any other issues! ​Pamzeis (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I shall take the role of Court Reviewer of the High Castle of Pamzeis with great honor! But, don't worry, I'm a strong believer in quid pro quo. Thanks for addressing the concerns- good for GA! Nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In 2017, Grace stated she would attend a creative writing workshop with other home-schooled students once a week. - This is a bit confusing; is she attending it after this statement? Is this her reflecting and saying "I would attend classes each day in elementary school..."? A moment to reflect on our favorite WP:INTOTHEWOULDS  Fixed ...recommended traveling to Los Angeles, California... - expand the WL to Cali as well: Los Angeles, California.  Done ...which disappointed critics. - Did her performance disappoint critics? Did the film dissapoint? What was dissapointing? Revised In a review mxdwn.com lauded her... - comma after "review", or perhaps just cut "in a review" altogether  Done but kept "in a review" because I think it makes it flow a bit better. I'm not entirely against cutting it though. "Stated" is used twelve times in the article; I'd suggest mixing it up, using said, opined and wrote for reviewers, etc... of course, be wary of MOS:SAID And I was super wary of overusing "described" and "commented". Never occurred to me that I overused "stated"... Wl scoliosis under "Personal life"  Not done because it's already linked in "Music career", though this maybe a case of WP:IAR given its significance Under "Awards and nominations", the small text and footnote "shared with others" would make more sense if attached to the "Won" cell. Also, put shared with others inside the efn: "Grace shared the win with others: Brooklynn..."  Done Prose is clear and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MoS standards for layout and fiction- lead is well-written.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. 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).	Most sources are to entertainment websites or magazines, and some are to review sites (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes) and music streaming services (Apple Music). All reliable in their usage.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking the following, chosen at random: Ref 10 (Ng 2013): good Ref 23 (Kroll 2015): good Ref 29 (Roeper 2017): good Ref 37 (Andreeva 2018): good Ref 42 (Rife 2018): good Ref 57 (D'Angelo 2020): good Ref 73 (Lambe 2021): good Ref 85 (Grace 2021): good for the second sentence, but does not support Throughout filming, her portrayal of the character shifted significantly; she originally played Phoebe as robotic as possible, but director Jason Reitman asked her to be more expressive. It's not in the text, but the YouTube video above the excerpts of the interview. At around 12:16 and 13:00–13:25. Ref 106 (Fienberg 2022): good Ref 113 (D'Alessandro 2023): good Ref 128 (Today 2022): good Ref 141 (Fahey 2022): good Ref 154 (Bolton 2022): good All come up clear, no OR visible.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations. High scores on some sources are due to names and quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses her early life, acting career, music career, influences, and personal life. All good here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No editorial bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There have been a number of revisions in the last month that were reverted due to lack of sources, which is justified but I felt was worth noting. The reversions went unchallenged- no edit warring present.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are properly CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Grace cites American singers Lana Del Rey and Taylor Swift (right) as her main influences. - (left) needs to be placed after Lana Del Ray, otherwise it's inconsistent.  Done Images are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.