Talk:Chris Columbus (filmmaker)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JimKaatFan (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.	No problems with conciseness or spelling. Some minor issues in the lead with grammar and clarity.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the lead, the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph needs work, as it's a bit confusing and needs a grammar tweak; the two problems are related. In the first sentence of the lead, the claim is made that Columbus is "best known for his family and sentimental films", the "family" part of it is not in the body at all, and the "sentimental" part of it is sourced to two articles with the briefest of mentions of "sentimentality". It seems to me that that is too trivial to be mentioned in the first sentence of a lead, given the weak sourcing. It's fine in the body. The Harry Potter films are mentioned as "His greatest commercial successes", but I see no sourcing for this either, and there's problems with this opinion as well, since what does "greatest commercial successes" mean, really? It's unclear and could be reworded. The lead should not contain statements this ambiguous. The lead mentions 15 of the 21 total films he's been involved in - see "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article" in MOS:INTRO. It could be tightened up quite a bit. @JimKaatFan: Thank you for reviewing this article. I agree there were some issues with wording. I've tightened the lead up a bit, so hopefully it's better now! L150 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the new lead meets all criteria, well done. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.	List of references is good.
	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).	All information is referenced to verifiable, reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The aforementioned lead contains what could be construed as grey-area original research; already explained above. Update: lead was adjusted and contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I used the Earwig tool and found no copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars going on that I can see.
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.	This all looks good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The picture of Columbus at Comic Con 2012 could be cropped to just include the two on the right. #1, you'd actually be able to see him , and #2 the emcee isn't relevant, but Ned Vizzini is, and could be briefly ID'd in the caption as his co-author on the House of Secrets book series. I've cropped the image on this article using some CSS (which is easier, hope that's okay). Vizzini as co-author is mentioned in the body already, but happy to add it to the caption if it's clearer. L150 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] Vast improvement, well done again. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	It's very close; a few fixes to the minor problems should do it. Update: with minor fixes implemented, I believe all criteria are met. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]