Talk:Harry Shearer/GA1

GA Review

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

Hey. I'm gonna go the GA review in pieces to make sure I hit on everything. First, Ref+image stuff:

In terms of no 404's, the refs check out fine.
The rationale on the Spinal Tap issue isn't too bad, just make sure it really explains that this was an iconic and major role of his. Other images are PD and fine.
I'm not too keen on IMDB as a reliable source, but since you're just using it for filmography that's fine. That being said, Refs 67-70 need to still use the citation templates and be completed, no bare links.
- The IMDB links were added by a user shortly before you started your review. They have been removed.
  - I'm curious: what's the matter with IMDB? Don't those movies need to be cited? (I suppose that any curious researchers could find them as easily as I did, but aren't we supposed to save them that trouble?) DougHill (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #9 needs a work or publisher, if possible. (I'd add it but can't open it)
- Another one added shortly before review. I don't see why it's needed, so I removed it.
A lot of ref dates look like "(2009-02-04)". In those cases the dates should probably be fully written.
- A long time ago, I used to write the dates out (so February 2 instead of 2009-02-04) but I was told to write the dates in numbers. Is there a reason why words should be used instead?
  - That's generally just my preference more than anything, since it looks nicer that way when reading the refs. Wizardman 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After these are fixed, the refs and images check out. I will then start reading the main article. Wizardman 16:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review! -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed ref #9, now #10. I also ran Reflinks to put the IMBD references in template form.DougHill (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Part II: The Lead

For the most part it is good, though it feels a bit long. Thing is, I'm not exactly sure what couple sentences could go, since it does provide a good summary. Knocking off a bit of the early life might help, since it goes into a lot of detail for a lead paragraph.
- I shortened it a bit.

Part III: Early career + SNL

I like the note of Mel Blanc taking him under his wing. However, it feels like it doesn't take that note anywhere. Could there be detail added about anything specific Blanc did for Shearer? I think it would be a nice touch, but it's okay if there's not.
- I tried listening to the interview, and he doesn't really elaborate on it.
It says he was "one of the first additions to the cast," but SNL had been around for 4 years at this time, so the sentence doesn't feel like it rings completely true.
- I was unsure at first, but as this shows, there was one addition in 1978, then he was one of seven added in 1979. The source cited does say that, so I added it.

So far I'm impressed with the article though. I'm trying to nitpick but I'm not finding much to nitpick. I'll keep reading though and point out what I can though. Wizardman 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part IV: Rest of career

Any further information on the 25th anniversary album? Just making sure that's up to date.
- Not that I could find.
In 1992, Spinal Tap appeared in an episode called "The Otto Show." -- It's a nice note, but it feels kinda thrust in there and breaks the flow. Maybe it would fit better in the Spinal Tap section?
- I thought it was a little out of order to mention The Simpsons in that section, but I made the switch.
Is there a note as to why he declined to participate in The Simpsons Ride?
- No, unfortunately not.

Part V: Personal life

Didn't find any issues.

This is all I found. I'll put it on hold until the above issues are addressed, though in all honesty I'm very tempted to just pass it now, since it is deserving of that. Wizardman 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Since the concerns have been addressed I'll pass the article. Wizardman 17:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks a lot for reviewing the article! :) TheLeft orium 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]