Talk:PewDiePie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Supernerd11 (talk · contribs) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never reviewed a GAN/FAN before, so if I do anything wrong, feel free to correct me. From what I can tell, this article's pretty good. Looking over the reflist at the end, most of the refs are good (although there's a couple like Facebook used that aren't reliable), and there's few unsourced claims (the first line in "Continued growth (2014-present)", where it mentions that he said that he'd upload less; and the bit in "Becoming the most subscribed user (2013)" where it says that he retook the spotlight). Assuming Tumblr and the other unreliable sources are okay since they only seem to be used for minor things, I'd be all for supporting this. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi24517's suggestions

I've decided to help with this review. Let me know if you want these comments. After all, it is your GAR.

Let's see, Facebook is usually unreliable, as User:Supernerd11 said, so you might want to find some other references to support those areas. There should be an image in the beginning of the article, maybe a picture of him, or maybe his logo on Youtube. (Just saying, anything else works too.)

Punctuation: I found the word "isn't" and if it is not in quotes, then you should probably try to change it so it says "is not."

Let's see, another thing I found is that per WP:MOS, dates shouldn't have -th after them. For example, if there was a date that said January 30th, it should be changed to January 30.

Every little comment was found by the peer reviewer.

Overall: I think this article should be promoted to GA status. @Supernerd11: I know that it is your GAR, so I'll let you decide what to do with this article. Thanks for lettng me provide comments. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on this; it'd been awhile with nobody doing anything here. Going through with Ctrl-F, it appears that someone's already fixed the date and contraction issues, so that's good. There's a picture of his channel logo down, and while it seems odd that it's further down and the is at the top, it's technically about the person, so that's why it'd be further down. I'm not aware of any CC-BY-SA or free-er images of him specifically, and haven't been able to find any by looking (although I don't do a lot of image work, so there could be some very good websites I'm missing). Also haven't been able to find a better source for the ill-sourced bits. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 04:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging to promote: @Supernerd11: Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the hiatus, but let's see who else might be interested: Tezero and Sergecross73 probably will, maybe Jaguar and Mdann52? I've worked with Tezero before on some video game-related stuff, I've seen the others in GAN discussions in the same vein as this one. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 15:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: not sure where you would of seen my name before, I haven't done any GAN's for a while, but here I am :) I've looked through in some detail, and apart from some gen fixes, this looks ready to go to me. Suggest promotion. Mdann52 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty good. I notice a few short paragraphs and some small parts that could be better worded, so I'll take care of that. For future reference, Supernerd, I suggest going through each of the GA criteria individually. The only ones I think any new reviewer who's an experienced editors would really have trouble with are reliable sources and prose quality, in which case I'd suggest just looking at other GAs or asking other editors for input. Tezero (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, though I'm at work at the moment and I can't check through the whole of the article, but from a first glance it seems the prose is looking almost solid enough. I would advise to cut down on some of the citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE - as it discourages non-controversial information to be cited. I take a unconventional but agreeable approach on focusing on the quality of the prose in contrast to technical points. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 11:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, going through the criteria point-by-point to make sure everything's good:

No immediate failures (excessive cleanup banners, copyright infringement, or far from satisfying any of the GA criteria): Done
Well-written (clear prose and not too wordy, spelling and grammar, MoS guidelines): Done
Verifiable (good sourcing, no original research): Done
Broad coverage (talks about PewDiePie as a whole, stays focused): Done
Neutral (unbiased, due weight given): Done
Stable (doesn't change frequently, especially in edit war-like situations: Done
Illustrated (has necessary images & properly tagged, not too many graphics): Needs a picture of him (and maybe one or two of something he's done), but I haven't been able to find a free image, so still counts as Done

Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 16:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: In that case, you may close the review per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks, C 679 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]