Talk:Emma Thompson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this before anybody steals it this time! I'll leave down some initial comments within 24 hours and will mainly focus on copy editing issues. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead

 * "Cited as one of the greatest British actresses of her generation,[2][3]" - it is in best practise to remove/relocate any references form the lead into the article (per WP:LEAD and most GA articles)
 * Other than this though the whole lead complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria.

For strong statements like that citations are not out of place in the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Acting career

 * "The film was a box office disappointment" - in what way? Was it a failure because it only generated $510,712 or just because the film itself was bad?
 * Box office disappointment means what it says, a commercial failure without implying a critical failure.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "She later reprised her role with cameo appearances in the Order of the Phoenix (2007) and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)" - I wouldn't say these were both cameo roles as her character (Professor Trelawney) was a minor and recurring character in both the books and films
 * Agreed I think it was more than a cameo and more a minor role.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

 * "In 2003, Thompson and Wise were married in Dunoon." - could this location be explained/linked?
 * I explain where it is and that it's a holiday home earlier in personal life section..♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything else in this section checks out just fine though.

Filmography, awards and nominations

 * This section is unreferenced. Possibly a small expansion and at least one reference would make it meet the GA criteria.
 * Sourced in various places in article but I've added a source to NY Times Awards list.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

On hold
This article is nearly flawless as nearly every section meets the GA criteria. The prose is excellent and the only problems I could find were the references in the lead, a few copyediting issues in the 'Acting Career' section and the unreferenced filmography section. Believe me, it took me a long time to read through this article and to do this review but to be honest with you I can't find anything else wrong with it! This is a good thing - I'll put this on hold for at least seven days and once those issues are addressed to this article would become GA in no time! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 13:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate the review and time you took to read it. Hope you enjoyed it. thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Sorry for coming late as I've been out all day and night. Yeah I did enjoy the review - the hardest part of it was to spot any flaws in the copyediting but there were next to none as this article is flawless. It would have passed straight away if it was not for those minor issues! Thank you for addressing those points so quickly, this article now has its well deserved GA status. Thank you :) ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)