Talk:Jason Graae

Assessment

Only two small things that make me assess as a C, although I'm usually fairly conservative about assessments and someone else may think differently. Supporting media, while of course not required, would greatly improve the article, especially one on a performer. Second, the career section could probably use some parsing and organization into logical subsections, since it is currently 1k+ words of continuous prose, and readers on mobile devices may be easily lost in it. Comments or disagreements welcome. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Needs a thorough copy edit. (I began but don't have time to finish now.) Too many sentences beginning with the subject's name. Content-wise, it looks impressively comprehensive and the sourcing extensive. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood and Rivertorch's Evil Twin: Thanks for your comments and assessment. I completely agree it needs a good copyedit, I took an unreferenced BLP stub and added a reference to my new article, Six Dance Lessons in Six Weeks, then decided to build it up for DYK. I added way more than I expected. The way it has evolved, adding bits and pieces as I found them, is a great way to need a thorough polish at the end. Any help is hugely welcomed. I haven't found an image of Graae to add, though I have sent an email to him through his website seeking one - I do agree that media would be welcome. I also can see the copyediting involving more sections. I was hoping that I was in the ballpark of a 'B' class, so the assessment seems fair to me. Many Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood and Rivertorch's Evil Twin: The article has now been copyedited by the WP:GOCE, and I am wondering whether it is up to "B" class in your view. Also wondering about putting it in for GA, even though I have been unable to locate a free image. EdChem (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks way better. In fact, I got so absorbed in reading it that I kept forgetting to read carefully—a good sign, I think. I did notice several minor issues, which I'll try to get to tomorrow. (Ping me if I don't. I'm pretending to be a multi-tasker at the moment and fooling no one.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 10:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just got back home today. Haven't unpacked yet, but I'll try to look over it tomorrow. Have you tried emailing the individual (or their "people") directly to request that they provide an appropriate image? Usually people will look at this as basically free PR. If you can find an address I'd be happy to mail them and walk them through the process, or upload it appropriately. TimothyJosephWood 01:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I did an additional copyedit and cleaned up a few things. Here are my remaining concerns, all pretty minor except for the first one:

• The second sentence in the Overview section is almost word-for-word identical to the text in the cited source. It needs to be rewritten (and the rest checked carefully to ensure that something similarly alarming didn’t happen elsewhere).
• Re the senttence “The production won him an Ovation Award, having been earlier nominated for Forbidden Hollywood.” I don’t understand what this means. Who or what was nominated? This needs clarification.
• A bit further along, “Coup de Graae! includes…recognition of his voice-over work”. I’m not sure that “recognition” is the best word here. Maybe “stagings” or “reprises”. I’m not sure; it may not be important.
• Not sure you need to say “the award went to Norman A. Hall”; just saying Graae was nominated implies that he didn’t win, and since Hall doesn't come into the picture again elsewhere in the article, he seems irrelevant for our purposes.
• Since the subject is an American, the article probably should use American English. I noticed a couple of British-English spellings—"honour" and "honoured"—but didn't change them. There might be others.

Overall, I'd say the article looks to be in very good shape. A short "Personal life" section might be a nice enhancement, if any reliable information can be found. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I've addressed the first four points. You're right that American English is probably more appropriate, but that is not something I feel like doing right now. Is it worth putting up for GA, in your view? EdChem (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I did try sending an email and got no response. There are contact details here, if you want to have a try, thanks for the offer. Any thoughts on putting it up for GA? EdChem (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no experience nominating or reviewing GAs, so I lack any intuitive sense about these things. If you've looked through the criteria carefully and are absolutely confident it meets them all, then go for it. (According to the criteria, it sounds as if the lack of any image might be grounds for failure, although the wording is a bit ambiguous.) If it fails, you can always nominate it again after fixing whatever the problem was. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I actually only recently nominated my first article for GA at the start of November, and the review is still ongoing. If your aim is to achieve GA rating, I really can't tell you one way or the other. I your aim is to improve the article, I can say that GA review is a really useful tool for seeking in depth outside review. TimothyJosephWood 23:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)