Talk:Joseph Calleia/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Refs #99 & #100 need to be filled out more completely. As it stands now they are basically bare URLs. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refs have been filled-out. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Everything seems to be scrupulously sourced - nice job. Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The copyvio tool found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Nicely-done boigraphy - some detail but does't descend into trivial fluff. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I will have to look up each image's copyright/public domain status. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the images have the proper permissions - and that is awesome. Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The amount of space that the images take up compared to the text is troubling. I think the article would be well-served if the number of images was adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WFinch: Having all the images in the Gallery is not necessary and I don't see the relevance of keeping all of them in the article. The number of images in the Gallery needs to be edited down - they overwhelm the main text. Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely-elegant fix. And makes more sense to have these images illustrate the filmography. Better than I would have done. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article was a pleasure to read and to Review. If you are thinking about possibly going for FA I think the article might benefit from having additional images to illustrate the 'Theatre credits' section - especially the important ones - like the 'All My Sons' London production, Small Miracles, "Broadway", The Front Page (as part of the original Broadway cast) - somewhat along the lines of what you accomplished for the filmography. I think adding images to the theatre credits would balance out all those images for his film credits. Shearonink (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for selecting Joseph Calleia's article for review—for the work you put into it and for your recommendations. I've done a little digging for theatre images, and now I'll look further. — WFinch (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Shearonink (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs & Images etc.[edit]

@WFinch:The only issues I have found so far are the

number of images in the Gallery and
References #99 & #100 needing to be filled-out more completely.

Thank you for pointing out the bare references—I've formatted those two citations—and for your observations about the number of images. I've removed the Gallery and moved the most notable images to the Filmography section. — WFinch (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be doing another proofreading readthrough of the article. Pending finding any issues I might have missed, I will probably be able to finish up my Review after the above Ref/images issues are take care of. Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.