Talk:Jon Cryer/GA4

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "Cryer made his film debut by starring in the 1984 romantic comedy film No Small Affair", remove the second "film", not needed. Same section, "Even though Cryer gained some fame by starring in these movies, he still hadn't made his TV breakthrough yet", "TV" ---> "television" and "didn't" ---> "did not". Same section, "So far, he has received three Emmy Award nominations for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series for his work on the show", "so far" seems very odd. In the Career section, paragraph two and three, are a bit repetitive with "Cryer", might want to make a consistency. In the Personal life section, "Purchased a Mansion in the Hollywood hills which was previously owned by Oscar winning actress Kathy Bates", something is missing. Also, remove "Oscar winning actress", not really needed in the sentence.
Half-check, fix paragraph two and three. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Career section, "nineteen" ---> "19". In the lead and throughout the article, correctly link "John Hughes" to its correspondence article. Also, in the Career section, fix the "Daily News" link and italicize it, per here. Same section, fix "Partners" and italicize "Time Out New York". In the Personal life section, italicize "Time Out New York". In the Film work chart, fix "The Waiter" and "Glam" links. Do the same for "It's Good to Be King" in the Television work chart.
Half-check, "Partners", "John Hughes", and "Daily News" need to be correctly linked to their correct article. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference 16 is missing Publisher info.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered your statements.--Music26/11 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, I must have missed some of your statements the first time, it's taken care of now.--Music26/11 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Music for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]