Talk:Tom Welling/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa   (talk)  08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll give it a read through now and make notes here as I go. Miyagawa  (talk)  08:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate that it's a hard job finding neutral point of view sources for a lead actor in a tv show. It's quite easy to find information on Tom but it's finding information from sources that meet this Wiki's reliability criteria that can be difficult.


 * The lead section doesn't adequately summarize the contents of the article. See Lead section. I think the sections it's lacking are some parts of the career section and the awards section. There's also no mention of his early life in the lead, but that section is quite short and I'm worried you might end up repeating yourself word for word.


 * It might be worth while merging the sections "Early life" and "Personal life" into a section named "Background" located where Early life is currently. The current GA Nate Parker has this and it would prevent the Personal life section from appearing really short. I just can't help but feel that both sections could do with an expansion - especially the Janesville, Wisconsin link - the article has the category added but doesn't mention the city by name in the article. (although the city's article does name Tom).


 * The Career section seems like a massive lump of text compared to the rest of the article. It might be worth breaking it into two or three subsections. Off the top of my head I think "Modelling and early television", "Smallville" and "Film and production work". You shouldn't need to jiggle the information around that much, I think that the titles should slot right in - but I didn't want to put them in there as I'm not sure the titles are quite right. First subsection header would be inserted right after the Career header, Smallville before the second paragraph and then the third subsection header before the fifth paragraph. Have a play with the titles and the locations (and the number of headers).


 * It would be tidier if all the References were formatted in the same way as I note that reference 10 and 14 are just urls while reference 1 doesn't have an access date. Template:Citation is the format the others follow.


 * Just copyedited the paragraph that had the awkward tag on it. I think it flows a little better but if you can see a way to improve it further, please do.

Missing information

 * Just checked his IMDB page and the Television Filmography table misses his six appearances in Judging Amy.


 * Had a quick look on Google books and found some information about Tom being up for the role of Superman at the time that Brett Ratner was lined up to direct. Book is called "Superman vs. Hollywood: How Fiendish Producers, Devious Directors, and Warring Writers Grounded an American Icon" by Jake Rossen, and the information is on page 273 towards the bottom.


 * Linked into the previous one, if you want to make a new paragraph out of it is this link: http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=1205&offset=60 where upon hearing about the possible casting in the Ratner version of Superman, comicbook artist Alex Ross drew Welling as Superman. Just worth noting as Ross is a very well know comic book artist.


 * Managed to find a link in the Google News Archive about Tom disliking interviews: http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=_hknAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aNAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4719,3662840&dq=tom-welling&hl=en


 * http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/12/nyregion/boldface-names-960624.html?pagewanted=1 A few further details about Tom's wedding about half way down the page.

Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm going to put this on hold for a week to see what changes are made. Overall, it's a good start on a topic which isn't made easy because of the unreliability of fansites. Miyagawa  (talk)  09:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One further thing to note, I'd recommend you look at for examples of what this article is aspiring to. Miyagawa  (talk)  09:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well quite a bit has been done, I just went and formatted a rogue citation and added a line to the lead and I think we're all done. A good job on an actor that really isn't in the public eye that much and nice work at ensuring that you used reliable sourcing. Happy to mark this GA. Miyagawa   (talk)  08:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)