Talk:Dan Gilroy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning!) and jot notes below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is a bit slim

What do you suggest I add? I think it's reasonably long for an article that has nearly 6k prose size

Maybe it's just because I am looking at it on a widescreen - yeah not sure either. Need ot think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I expanded this a tad bit by adding his frequent collaboration with his wife. Let me know what's up. Slightlymad 11:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Try to minimise (if possible) the number of paragraphs that start with "Gilroy..."~~

Done

~~Dan Gilroy recalled growing up "in a house where our father was a working writer and working at home. We got to see him write, and that demystified the process of becoming a writer."~~ ~~- rewrite and paraphrase without quoting.~~

Done

The Career section is a bit listy. It would greatly benefit from any other information or fleshing out of his involvement with each or any movie. Any extra sourceable material here would be great.

I've added some blurb about his new film, though I couldn't really find coverage of his involvement on those films he had previously written as a screenwriter. Slightlymad 14:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a pity - I keep thinking there must be something out there....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as the previous cut had lay much emphasis on the characters - grammar? "lain"?

I suppose that's correct, changed. Slightlymad 14:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber, can I get a status update on the review? Did you want me to expand it further with regard to the remaining issues? Slightlymad 05:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meanto to have a look myself ~~to see whether there was anything out there to add. Hang on....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)~~ bleh, you're right...nothing coming up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Earwigs is ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

(in an ideal world, there'd be some more background on some earlier movies but then, are we surprised that Freejack has been well and truly forgotten about by everybody?

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- ok all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]