Jump to content

Talk:Will Speck and Josh Gordon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page name

[edit]

It seems like the page name should be Speck & Gordon rather than the two spelled out names? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Most of their films credit them by their full names. They are also not related so ... Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Will Speck and Josh Gordon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • After making a few tweaks, prose looks good. Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass, no issues.
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.
  • Pass, no issues.
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).
  • Pass. I was a little concerned about Rotten Tomatoes, but I see that per WP:RSP we should be ok.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass, no issues.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Nothing found by Earwig or by manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Nothing else substantial shows up in sources or on Google.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Pass, no issues.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Not hagiographic. Pass.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass, no issues with stability.
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.
  • Pass, no issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Either the logo image or the portraits could be moved into the infobox, which would be an improvement. Other than that, no issues.
    • Issue addressed - my mistake! Pass.
7. Overall assessment.
@Ganesha811: For the comment about the infobox, its template says the infobox should only contain images of the article's subjects. The photographs in #Career and the logo in #Filmography do not depict the directors. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's embarrassing! That's what comes of doing the image check by looking at all the metadata and not at the actual image! Infobox should be fine, in that case. Continuing on with the rest of the review. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: nice work. This article passes GA, and needed almost no changes to get there. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Will_Speck_and_Josh_Gordon&oldid=1207146661"