Talk:Herb Mitchell (actor)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll begin with a close readthrough of the article in the next few days, noting any initial issues here, and then move on to the criteria checklist. Looking forward to working with you--thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

"He was paid a primary tribute" -- I'm not clear what a "primary tribute" is--how does it differ from a tribute?
- Took out "primary". --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead could use slight expansion to better cover the article's contents--probably mention the Dean Witter commercials that he's best known for, another major part or two, and a sentence or two about the path of his life.
- Known for what? I don't think his roles were that big while he was alive. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. That's how the LAT piece identified him, and I misremembered the emphasis they put on it. [1]. It would be helpful, though, to identify one or two key parts in the lead (perhaps the Dean Witter and the Practice role); "appeared in theaters, films, television, and in commercials" is a bit too generic to be helpful for the reader looking for a quick summary. You might also mention that he moved into acting full-time after a start in finance, as this is an aspect his obituaries seem to emphasize. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope the current version's lede is better. --George Ho (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, definitely improved. I expanded it still a little more, and removed the tag. Does the new version look acceptable to you? If so, I think we're good to go. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Even if it passes GAN, this article may still be edited without affecting the GA status too much. --George Ho (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks strong, and sourcing is good. I'm concerned with the article's length, though; this is the first time I've run into an article this short for a GA nom (3kb readable text). Let me briefly consult at WT:GAN if this can meet requirements. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.	Prose is clear and correct. Spot-checking of sources shows no evidence of copyright violation.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is brief, but so are the sources on Mitchell, which are well summarized here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--nice work!