Talk:Daniel Radcliffe/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Artoasis (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article has indeed improved a lot from the last time. Nice work. I only sampled the lead section, and will do some copyediting shortly. I plan to deliver my verdict this weekend after a more thorough check. Cheers.--Artoasis (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I did some ce for the lead to make it more concise. I also took out the last sentence — Radcliffe is an atheist and also suffers from a mild form of the neurological disorder dyspraxia. An "atheist" and some "neurological disorder" sounded a little weird together. If you think they are essential information for the lead, please consider rewording the sentence before adding it back. I will finish the rest of the article by the weekend.

Thanks! I think the lead looks better now then it did before.

More ce is coming...

OK, all done. Artoasis (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
May I suggest you convert the BBC link in the EL section to an inline citation? The link does not seem to provide anything EL worthy.

I am not sure what you meant.... Crystal Clear x3 22:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this BBC link, pointing to a very short and immature bio. I think it would be better to use it as an inline ref, or simply remove it. Artoasis (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh. I agree that the reference should be removed, but when I looked through the Early Life section I couldn't find it. What # is it? Crystal Clear x3 21:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. For EL, I meant the External link section, :)

Oh, lol. done Crystal Clear x3 00:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Last time there were way too many details in the Personal life section, which was a major sign of a fannish article.
Much more focused this time.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I have completed my review with some ce, and all the issues I raised have been addressed by Crystal Clear. Congratulations, it is a GA now, :) --Artoasis (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! =) Crystal Clear x3 23:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]