Talk:Brad Pitt/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brad Pitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * All issues now addressed. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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)
 * all looks good now. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * How 'bout now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Spot on! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All concerns addressed, a GOOD ARTICLE! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All concerns addressed, a GOOD ARTICLE! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * All concerns addressed, a GOOD ARTICLE! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All concerns addressed, a GOOD ARTICLE! Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * All grammar issues have been addressed. Paulbrock (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your time in reviewing the article. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)