Talk:Antonella Barba/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 15:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aoba47, I've begun looking through the article as promised. I'm at the first part at the moment. But once I finished, I will give my review.

Thank you! I did not expect a review so quickly. Hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you wanted me to look through it before, so I might as well do a GA review on it. :P 100cellsman (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
and be more involved with politics through running for office.” I don’t understand this statement.
She was hired to encourage younger people to run for political positions/offices. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think TV Guide is not supposed to have italics.
It is present in italics in its article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I don’t see the benefit of reference 1 being in the first sentence.

Reference 2 is just a youtube video and text which seems like is cut out.

To me, reference 4 can be a reliable source, but I personally wouldn’t have used it given the context of the source matter listing “the sexiest italian mamas”

It would be more convenient if the Twitter source on ref 8 links to the exact tweet about her playing piano.
Reference 1 is used to support Barba's full name (i.e. her middle name) so it is necessary for inclusion. I have replace Source 2 with a difference source. It may not be the most high quality, but it is the best that I can find at the moment to reference her birthday. I added a new source with the following intervew as it added new information. Apparently, she was born in Santa Monica, which makes sense given that the article originally said that she was born somewhere in California prior to my revision. I think you can Source 7 instead of Source 8 (as 8 is referencing TV Guide). The information about her ability to play the piano is in her twitter description, and is not a tweet. Aoba47 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest using reference 1 in front of her name in bold in the lead text. 100cellsman (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is normally discouraged to include citations in the lead, unless it is citing controversial information. Refer to articles like Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga to see what I mean. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
So I could not find a free image of her, and with that being said, I don’t think the other two images in the article should be included.
Thank you for trying. I have removed the two images, but what is your reason for not wanting them included? I am not disagreeing with you. I was just curious. Aoba47 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find it strange that there are images in the article when there is no infobox pic.
Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article is good to go now! 100cellsman (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It was certainly interesting to work on this one as it is very random lol, but hopefully people will find it helpful. Have a good one! Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]