Talk:Ali Larter/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I'm reviewing this for Good Article status. It looks good on most of the criteria, but it's a little shaky on the grammar. It's clearly-written, but the main grammar issue is that you don't know where to put commas. I may ask for a second opinion from another reviewer as to the style. Shouldn't be anything too difficult to get fixed. It looks like you're fine as far as NPOV, image use, stability, broad coverage, and reliable references. A couple of quick things stand out:


 * ref #1: Don't use an IMDB bio page as a reference. If you're using that as a source of the date of birth, as it appears that you did, then you can use her regular IMDB page. IMDB itself is a reliable source, but the bio pages may be fan-written, and we can't be sure whether they're fact-checked. Maybe you even wrote it. Don't cite it.


 * ref #23 (Prime-Time Emmys) is a dead link.

More later.

Reviewer: Dementia13 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisions
I went through the entire article doing grammar and style cleanup, and I trimmed the lead slightly. The lead functions as an overview of and introduction to the article, so you want to give some facts in the lead while leaving most of the details for the main body of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. Keeping in mind that the lead serves as a summary of the article, you're free to look at the article and decide if there are any major points that you feel belong in the lead; just think of it as a kind of teaser for what's to come in the article, instead of trying to explain anything in full detail. Dementia13 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Article
I believe that this article now meets all of the criteria for Good Article status. Good work. I think the coverage is reasonably broad without getting sidetracked on any tangents, or going into any irrelevant details. That's tricky to do, especially when covering someone whose career is little longer than 10 years. I don't see any NPOV problems: although it's uncommon to see a bio page that presents only positive information about its subject, I'm not aware of any controversies surrounding Ms. Larter, and I don't see anything with a "fannish", as opposed to an objective, tone to it. You've cleaned up the references in an article that was already well-supported by references. Good work, and as updates are made to the page, please continue to take care to use impeccable sources as references. Dementia13 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)