Talk:Brad Pitt/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Few mistakes and poor grammar here and there - see below

   B. MoS compliance:

   meets most relevant sections of the MOS,however fails WP:WTA with a single mention of "Ironically". I also don't like the 3rd column in the filmography - it seems very random - mentioning cameos and awards is OK, but the odd mention of filming location, director? messy.

   Does the table look good now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

   Ironically has been taken out of the sentence. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   sources provided throughout article

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   controversial material, quotes,stats all inline referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   covers areas you'd expect, comparable to actor FAs. Only point I'd make is that the early career stuff starts a little late, not covering the earliest roles in Filmography, but within GA criteria

   B. Focused:

   too much irrelevant detail on the children, particularly pre-Brad

   How 'bout now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   appears to be neutral, borderline pro Pitt. I can't think of any major turkeys in his career though so I think this is fine

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   no edit wars or active disputes

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All images are tagged, none are free-use

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   wasn't sure about the Ocean's 11 lineup at first, but good to illustrate moving up to the A list

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   a little more polishing and it should be there.

Specific points on 1a:

"advertising such diverse products as Edwin Jeans" looks like it's missing a product, perhaps removed in editing.

Stupid question: What exactly do you mean? --

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd expect it to read something like "such diverse products as x and y", where x and y show the range of diversity. Only one example doesn't show that diverse products were advertised, so alternately could drop "diverse". Sure enough, a version from 30 March 2008 read "advertising such diverse products as Edwin Jeans, the Toyota Altis, and Japanese canned coffee" Paulbrock (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It did, but there weren't any sources to back those two claims. Do you want the sentence to be re-written? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps can just lose 'diverse' then, if only one product can be verified, then we can't talk about a diverse range. Paulbrock (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"on an episode of MTV's Jackass" - should read "and appeared on an episode of..."

Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Pitt wore a pair of luminous green eyes" - contact lenses?

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

probably a couple more I didn't notice, not really my forte! Paulbrock (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)