Talk:Matt Bomer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

General Review
Generally I do a detailed read and offer comments as part of my GA review process. Both because of the scope of issues I see in this article and because of my general wiki mood I am not going that route at the moment. Instead let me provide summary review of the criteria, offering examples of what will frequently be a broader problem. If based on the work that results from that a detailed read then makes sense I will do so at that point.

Discussion
I am guessing you remain interested in this? As I look to to do a review it doesn't seem fair to let this sit any longer. However, despite some positive momentum since my December comment, this still has some issues from a very preliminary skim of the article. Namely there are still at least 1 troubling source - no GA should be citing the Daily Mail for anything except information about what the Daily Mail says, and some stilted/awkward writing. Just want to put this out there up front. Assuming you are still up for the review I'll get started soonish - but it might not be until the weekend. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hiya, I must of missed the Daily Mail one last review, have removed it. I am not so keen on some of the sources at times it feels a bit too tabloid. But I tried to have a bit of a clean-up. Govvy (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given an overall review of the article above. Happy to answer any questions you have about the review or the process I've outlined or to respond to any places where you think I've missed the mark. I am placing this on hold for now. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will have another run through when I have a chance, I was also hoping that would review the notes and help the article. Govvy (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , It's been a couple weeks now. I see you've done some minor tweaking around this but I am going to go ahead and mark this as failed. You are of course welcome to renominate at anytime and hopefully the above feedback gives you some guidance as to how to further improve the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your analyse was a bit tough for me to understand, might be my dyslexia, I did bits, but I work a lot better when people point out exactly what's wrong with an article. Cheers know. Govvy (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I was confusing. I'm not sure if it was the lack of specifics or the way I formatted my review that was the problem. If it was formatting here's a list of the issues I see (taking out all the complements):
 * Go through the article and find any WP:PEACOCK prose
 * Rewrite the lead so it is a summary of the article (see MOS:INTRO
 * Go through the article and remove unnecessary citations - that less controversial statements probably only need 1 citation not multiple
 * Add citations to statements that have citation needed templates
 * Find quotes from critics which focus on Bomer's performances rather than the show/film in general
 * Give more weight to topics which secondary sources give more weight to (e.g. major/career defining roles)
 * Look at covering all aspects of Bomer's career positive, negative, or neutral
 * Use the alt tag for images (not required for GA but good practice)
 * Hopefully that helps. If not and you need specific action items perhaps get a peer review ahead of a renomination for GA? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)