Talk:Isa Briones/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 00:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A reasonable article, but some writing and organizational aspects need attention
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Some writing and MoS issues in the text, see below
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I'm glad to see from the Talk page that you have kept out some things that don't have good sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The top image is good, but it might be worthwhile including Image:Alex Kurtzman, Patrick Stewart & Isa Briones (48445211132).jpg later on since it's a good view of her listening to Patrick Stewart
 * Done.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The top image is good, but it might be worthwhile including Image:Alex Kurtzman, Patrick Stewart & Isa Briones (48445211132).jpg later on since it's a good view of her listening to Patrick Stewart
 * Done.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Here my comments on 1a and 1b:
 * in the web television series – I think most people consider Picard to be streaming television not web television.
 * Following a Google search that found multiple RS for 'web television' and 'web TV' and none for 'streaming television' and 'streaming tv', I believe changing this would violate OR. That said, I've changed the lede to link CBS All Access instead.
 * Not sure what you were looking for, but this search shows lots of results. To me the 'web television' term, which is still in the Filmography section, has a connotation of something more experimental and/or lower budget than streaming series.  But I could be wrong on this.
 * I'm going to argue that you're wrong on this. The difference for me is sources v. reliable sources: every news source (that mentions it) uses 'web television'. See also International Academy of Web Television, which I believe destroys any assertion of "something more experimental and/or lower budget than streaming series."


 * Briones was cast in multiple roles in Star Trek: Picard in 2019. – this seems unnecessarily complicated for the lede, since for the large majority of the first season she is just Soji. The body of the article can get into a description of the other roles.
 * Done.


 * to Jon Jon and Megan Briones (née Johnson), – this should be written as Jon Jon Briones, otherwise it looks like her father is someone with the stage name of just "Jon Jon".
 * Done.


 * Briones has performed in numerous stage musicals since childhood. – assuming that this is the case, it should be clearer that she was appearing in Los Angeles in the productions described in this paragraph.
 * Done.


 * also topping her portrayal of "Perón's mistress" in Evita. – this wording doesn't make sense to me, who is topping what? Also, the part doesn't need to be in quotes.
 * Done.
 * Changed there, but it's still in quotes in the Awards section.


 * Regarding "I think that's a very relatable story as a mixed person, deciding that you can be ... both Filipino and white, ..., per MOS:LINKQUOTE there should not be links on 'mixed person' or 'white'. That's because we have no idea whether Isa Briones' idea of what those terms mean matches what the Wikipedia articles say.
 * Done.


 * Why is there a "Reception" section that has reviews of her work separate from the description of those parts? That forces the reader to jump back and forth among sections.  I don't recall seeing any GA or FA article about an actor organized like that, and the longer her career goes on the more unwieldy it would become.  Think of what a GA article like, say, Toni Collette would look like if it was organized like that.
 * Moved into Career.
 * That doesn't really change things. What I'm suggested, and what I think the vast majority of articles on actors do, is to eliminate the Reception section and fully integrate critical notices into the text where each work is described.  So you would have something like "In 2015, Smith played the role of a troubled police detective assigned a cold case in the Paramount film Lost souls in Los Angeles. Reviewer so-and-so said that Smith brought a gritty determination to the detective's search, but Reviewer someone-else wrote that Smith's potrayal did not get past the standard tropes of the detective genre. The following year, Smith was the ..." and so on.
 * Alright; this is news to me, but I'll get on it in a few minutes. Done.


 * She has begun making music with her brother Teo. – this is trivial and doesn't merit inclusion in the article until and unless it materializes into something that is publicly released.
 * Done.


 * Briones joined her Star Trek: Picard castmates including ... - this material has to do with her career, not her personal life - once you're cast in a Star Trek series, going to conventions is an aspect of your career choices, as you continually run the risk of being typecast as a Star Trek actor and nothing else (some have escaped that fate but many haven't). So it belongs with the Picard material.
 * Done.
 * You moved it into the Theatre section, but doesn't it belong in the Film and television section?
 * Oh, bloody hell. Fixed.

So the nomination will be on hold for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My thanks for your attention, . ATS (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See my responses to some of the items above. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)🖖🏻
 * Everything should be addressed. ATS (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have passed the article for GA, good work on it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My thanks for your review. ATS (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) 🖖🏻