Talk:Florence Pugh/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Copyvio check: Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows up a 78.2% match with this (unofficial) page. To be investigated, as there's always the chance that the other page copied from Wikipedia.
 * It is a backwards copy. MER-C 17:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help with this, . Much appreciated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Images used have suitable Creative Commons licences. Captions are appropriate.
 * Article is stable - no edit wars.

Early Life
 * Seems fine.

Career
 * In considering whether the article follows NPOV, I did do some searching for reviews, given that the article doesn't have any negative ones. I think the article fairly reflects the critical responses, and indeed it includes sources like Thorpe (2017) and O'Connor (2018) that help show that reviews haven't been cherry-picked.
 * Not even average or mixed reviews of her work seem to exist. Believe me, I've searched thoroughly as well.

2014–2018: Early roles
 * "While still in school" - not wrong, but I'd prefer a Sixth form mention as I think most UK readers would then realise she was about 17/18 rather than younger (without having to do the arithmetic from year of birth to 2014). Not a necessary change.
 * Changed the description to While still studying in sixth form to denote an age range and clue in non-UK readers that she was in school.


 * "mystery drama The Falling" - from the sources used here, looks to me more like "just" a drama, or a Coming-of-age story rather than a Mystery film. (I know there is a reference in one source to "mysterious bout of fainting").
 * Removed mystery. I believe you're right in that it was more of a description than an overall genre.


 * "dramedy" - how about a wikilink to Comedy-drama?


 * "Leir of Britain" - I'm only seeing "King Lear" in the source, and as I didn't know that the Shakespeare play was based on Leir, I'm going to assume there are some other readers who don't know that either. From a quick search, look like it was an updated version of the play, with Hopkins's character just called "Lear". So I think it may be better to replace "Leir of Britain" with "King Lear".

2019–present: Breakthrough and critical recognition
 * Seems fine.

Upcoming projects
 * All three sentences include "star" early on - consider rewording.
 * Changed the first star in to portray and the second to appear in.

Personal life
 * As the source says "thought to have been dating since April 2019" (I've added the bold), the statement "Pugh has been in a relationship with American actor and filmmaker Zach Braff since April 2019." is a bit strong and needs a little tweak or a new source.
 * Changed this to simply state that the two are in a relationship. I think that it would read as tabloid-esque to reference when they reportedly began seeing each other. Do you agree?
 * That works for me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Accolades
 * Seems fine.

Infobox and Lead
 * "the mystery film" - see comment under "2014–2018: Early roles"


 * "which won her a" - maybe just "and won"?
 * Changed this to Pugh gained recognition for [...] Lady Macbeth (2016), winning a British Independent Film Award.


 * "Pugh's international breakthrough" - the body text doesn't have "international." I suggest using the same phrase in both places. (Including "international" seems reasonable.)


 * "the period drama" - not included in the body. (I was also wondering if there should be a link to Historical drama, but maybe "period drama" is a common enough phrase).
 * Added genre in the body and links for both mentions.


 * "lattermost" doesn't seem to be a very common word - maybe just "last"? (Optional change.)
 * Changed lattermost to latter since there are only three items listed.

Sources
 * No issues with sources used, and range seems appropriate. There are a couple of queries about sources above. Breadth and depth of the article seems appropriate from what I read in sources.

Thanks for your work on the article,. No major issues from an initial review. I've made some comments above, which I hope are helpful. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed all of your comments, BennyOnTheLoose. Please let me know if there are other changes you'd like made! Thank you very much! KyleJoan talk 06:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Great work on the article. I think the article is suitably written, structured and referenced to be a GA, with just one tiny outstanding point - "latter" is used to refer to the second of two things, so in the lead you can either restore "lattermost", change to "last", or use a different formulation. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. I re-read my explanation for changing it to latter and instantly felt embarrassed. My apologies for that. I've made the change to last, and I believe it works great. KyleJoan talk 08:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we all knew everything, we wouldn't need Wikipedia. Thanks, I'm happy to pass this for GA now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, ! It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Wonderful weekend to you! KyleJoan talk 09:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)