Talk:Gloria Swanson/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The9Man (talk · contribs) 12:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Points
Initial observations:
1. The lead section is too detailed and can be more concise as per WP:MOSLEAD
- The9Man we might have to work together on pruning this. I was going by James Cagney as the ideal structure. But, you know, one size does not fit all. So I'll look over what I can do, and we can also discuss this. — Maile (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. I prefer to work on the articles to make it pass. - The9Man (Talk) 06:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I did a lot of trimming on the lead. Let me know. — Maile (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you may take the last paragraph to under Personal Life. If not the full paragraph, at least the last two sentences don't need to be in the lead.
Her second husband Herbert K. Somborn accused her of having affairs with 13 men during their marriage. - It is an accusation.
Swanson's sixth husband William Dufty shared her advocacy of a healthy diet, and was also the ghost writer of her autobiography Swanson on Swanson. - It is about William Dufty. 
Done I removed both altogether. The info is already in the article, and that paragraph was the summary. — Maile (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you may take the last paragraph to under Personal Life. If not the full paragraph, at least the last two sentences don't need to be in the lead.
2. The sentence which starts 'Her schoolgirl crush...' can be broken down to another paragraph as it doesn't go along with the initial inrodution statements.
I will be adding more points as I progress. I am open to discussions as well. - The9Man (Talk) 13:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
3. The words - school girl, film maker, ghost writer - are written together in American English. - The9Man (Talk) 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- The9Man I will be quite frank with you - I would prefer to vacate this review, and start over with a new reviewer. It's not because I disagree with your comments above. It's about your editing history regarding this GA and others being too slow. As far as I can tell, you only have two GA reviews that you have done. The Rihanna/GA1 followed the exact pattern this one has: You opened the template in April, but did not begin a review until two weeks later. No other edits were made, until your July response to why you had not edited. And the review was not finished until August. You do not have a good track record, and I would prefer a different reviewer who can do this in a timely manner. And quite frankly, a reviewer with more GAC experience. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)