Talk:Brad Pitt/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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]
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:
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]
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
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
no edit wars or active disputes
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
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]