Talk:Dylan Penn/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this once I get the time :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article seems to have improved from its first review significantly. Most problems are resolved, such as the sub-par prose, which is now very well readable. Some comments on the issues raised in the first review:

• the period dealt with spans approximately mid-2013 to September 2014. This is an indication it may not meet criterion 3a. - As far as I can see, there is not a lot more to say about this young lady so far. While taking in interest in people who are famous because of their parents and because of who they date eludes me, it is no reason to fail criterion 3a.
• Daily Mail may not be a reliable source - There are a couple of references here that could be argued do not come from what is usually considered reliable. However, it is accepted in "tabloid" topics to include "tabloid" sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia would only consist of articles on people The Guardian writes about. Yawn!

However, these things should be adressed:

• Nowhere does it actually state that Wright and Penn are famous actors. That is however necessary, because otherwise one might easily ask why this person deserves a Wikipedia article in the first place.
  • Although I think she is independently notable, I have clarified the notability of her parents.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• The archive links in the references are inconsistent. The style you should use is the one in reference #1 (Link to original page, publiser, archived from and then "the original" as the link). This can easily be achieved by using the cite web template.
  • I tried switching from cite news to cite web, but the formatting remains slightly different for the archive link. I guess it has something to do with the missing parameters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see now. Huh, that's weird, I never noticed before that cite web and cite news treat this differently... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• However the first reference is not a good example alltogether, since it makes no sense that the page is from July 28, 2014 and it is stated that it was retrieved on July 19th. Please look into this.
  • That is the archive date and it is the closest date that we have to the actual accessdate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• You might wanna find a better source for the Elvis and Nixon film. Maybe this one even though it is certainly not perfect as well.
  • Swapped in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's about it. I give the nominator(s) the usual seven days to adress the issues. Until then, it is placed on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a pass, congrats :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)