Talk:Justin Suarez/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Uness232 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is generally quite good, however I would personally incorporate Indelicato's quote into the article. Another nitpick is the term 'sexuality identities', I would replace that with 'sexual identity' or 'sexuality' instead. None of these prevent a pass though, I believe it is well-written all-round.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Lead section is composed of 4 well-written paragraphs, adequate for a good article, while not too long. Formatting is where this article needs some work in my opinion, certain parts of the article repeat themselves a bit too much, reducing detail in lead section might help with this. For example, in the lead: "Deciding Justin was too young to be sexualized, the show's producers agreed that he should experience a gradual coming out as he discovers his sexual identity, opting to leave it undisclosed for much of the series." is written, while a similar statement with a similar amount of detail is written in Creation and casting. Other than that, I believe the paragraphs here are a bit lengthy for a Wikipedia article, but that is just my personal preference. MOS:PUFFERY, words are used, but always cited, which I think is good enough. Overall, when the problems with formatting are fixed, I would happily give it a pass, but for now is on hold.	Pass

Writing this outside the criteria as this just came to my mind, but there are some links that are MOS:OVERLINK, such as "avoid providing a direct answer", which does not need a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uness232 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "sexuality identities" was completely a typo; I've replaced this with "sexuality", in the "Critical response" section. Couldn't find any other instances where this happened. I believe a quote box is the best way to use the actor's entire quote without making the paragraphs too long, so I would rather leave it as-is, if that's okay.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the sentence in the lead to "Deciding Justin was too young to be sexualized, the show's producers opted to leave his sexual orientation undisclosed for much of the series." In doing so, I've also been able to shorten the lead to three paragraphs instead of four. I've also done some additional shortening and summarizing throughout the article where noticeable.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed instances of overlinking that I could find throughout.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, another quick nitpick, is the word "extreme tactics" really appropriate in the 4th paragraph of Creation and casting? You changed it from measures to tactics, which I guess is okay (I think both are okay), but extreme and tactic together does not really sound encyclopedic to me. Uness232 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uness232 The best alternative I could think of for here was "great lengths"; let me know if this would suffice.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Not much to say here, seems okay.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citations are usually attributed and always from published sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Can't see any, everything seems properly cited.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Doesn't seem like an issue.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	It does cover all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	While the article is lengthy, the only problem seems to be repetition which I've already adressed in MoS, so this one gets a pass.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Seems okay, there are a variety of different sources with different perspectives, and as the general concensus is that his role is very influential and well-played, I think this is fair.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Only one editor has made substantial edits recently.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The one image used is non-free, but it has a rationale.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Not enough media to judge this with, but looking at the subject matter, finding free-use media might have been difficult.	Neutral

Yes, unfortunately free images are hard to come by for this article; I thought about adding a photo of Indelicato's co-star Michael Urie into the "critical response" section since the friendship between their characters was often considered a highlight of the series, but wasn't sure if a photo of an entirely different actor would be considered irrelevant. I also avoided adding a photo of Indelicato himself in the "creation and casting" section, simply because we already have a photo of the actor as the character in the infobox.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	As the minor problems above have been fixed, I think it's safe to say that this is in every way a good article.

Discussion

Uness232 Thank you very much for your quick review! I've addressed all your comments and am looking forward to your final verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]