Talk:Brad Pitt/GA1

Latest comment: 16 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    Few mistakes and poor grammar here and there - see below
    All issues now addressed. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
    B. MoS compliance:  
    meets most relevant sections of the MOS,however fails WP:WTA with a single mention of "Ironically". I also don't like the 3rd column in the filmography - it seems very random - mentioning cameos and awards is OK, but the odd mention of filming location, director? messy.
    Does the table look good now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
    Ironically has been taken out of the sentence. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
    all looks good now. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    sources provided throughout article
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    controversial material, quotes,stats all inline referenced
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    covers areas you'd expect, comparable to actor FAs. Only point I'd make is that the early career stuff starts a little late, not covering the earliest roles in Filmography, but within GA criteria
    B. Focused:  
    too much irrelevant detail on the children, particularly pre-Brad
    How 'bout now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
    Spot on! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    appears to be neutral, borderline pro Pitt. I can't think of any major turkeys in his career though so I think this is fine
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    no edit wars or active disputes
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    All images are tagged, none are free-use
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    wasn't sure about the Ocean's 11 lineup at first, but good to illustrate moving up to the A list
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    a little more polishing and it should be there.
    All concerns addressed, a GOOD ARTICLE! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Specific points on 1a:

"advertising such diverse products as Edwin Jeans" looks like it's missing a product, perhaps removed in editing.
Stupid question: What exactly do you mean? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd expect it to read something like "such diverse products as x and y", where x and y show the range of diversity. Only one example doesn't show that diverse products were advertised, so alternately could drop "diverse". Sure enough, a version from 30 March 2008 read "advertising such diverse products as Edwin Jeans, the Toyota Altis, and Japanese canned coffee" Paulbrock (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
It did, but there weren't any sources to back those two claims. Do you want the sentence to be re-written? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps can just lose 'diverse' then, if only one product can be verified, then we can't talk about a diverse range. Paulbrock (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"on an episode of MTV's Jackass" - should read "and appeared on an episode of..."
Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Pitt wore a pair of luminous green eyes" - contact lenses?
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

probably a couple more I didn't notice, not really my forte! Paulbrock (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

All grammar issues have been addressed. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for taking your time in reviewing the article. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply