Talk:You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again/GA1

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

Starting review. Checking quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC) ✅ no problems with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Synopsis: From then it follows her forward to her early adult life, and her successes in the film industry: is a little clumsy. Perhaps It then covers her early life and first successes in the film industry: would be better. The more notorious chapters.... More notorious than what?  the laundry list of drugs, not quite WP:NPOV. Later escapades in her life..., escapades is a little too flippant, I would suggest.  Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's annoying—I'd swear that I lifted the "laundry list" phrase from somewhere else, but now I can't find any reference to it outside the article. I've changed it to "combination" "amalgam". And you're right about "escapades", I might as well have written "hi-jinks" or "shenanigans". Changes as follows:
 * I've copy/pasted your version of the "early life" sentence.
 * "more notorious" --> "most notorious".
 * "laundry list of drugs" --> "amalgam of drugs".
 * "escapades" --> "episodes".
 * Great, those answer all my concrens. It is quite difficult to maintain the encyclopaediac tone when covering a book such as this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All online references are live links, one wiki link, pariah, goes to a disambiguation page. All citations are to WP:RS, I find no evidence of WP:OR. I assume WP:AGF for the Spielberg biography (reference #3) Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the recent page moves of pariah have anything to do with that. I've pipelinked to the wiktionary definition, since I didn't social stigma (the suggested link from the dab page) to be an ideal target page.
 * That works for me. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article remains broad in scope covering the major aspects of the subject and remains focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * A few points mentioned under the prose style above need addressing. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes listed above.
 * Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * I find no evidence of edit warring. Article appears to be stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * The illustration used is appropriately tagged with a non-fair use rationale and is captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few concerns in the prose style, as mentioned above, I shall place on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, happy to pass. Congratulations on a good article. I must go and get the book. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Woo-hoo! Cheers, I shall update my userpage and userboxes forthwith. --DeLarge (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, happy to pass. Congratulations on a good article. I must go and get the book. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Woo-hoo! Cheers, I shall update my userpage and userboxes forthwith. --DeLarge (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the feedback. Unfortunately, right at the moment you were posting this I was reviewing another page (Sweet Smell of Success), and it took a bit of time to compile. I'm feeling like something to eat right now, and probably won't want to be on-wiki when I get back, so I'll probably not work on the above points until tomorrow.

Also (and I know it's a bit perverse for GA for a nominator to point out flaws to the reviewer), I've been wondering about the final paragraph. Despite it being stable since I wrote it months ago, it suddenly struck me while I was having a read through it this morning that something didn't seem quite right. Specifically, it's the quotes from Julia Phillips shortly before her death. Given that the paragraph begins "After Phillips' death...", do you think I should move the quotes elsewhere? Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Perhaps move the first sentence of the last para to the end and adjust as necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried a few versions. The straight swap of both sentences is here. I accidentally made two separate paragraphs, though it still reads the same. The problem I have with that is that the final line doesn't seem to suit being the last sentence of an article. A second version left the order as it was originally, but split them up. I didn't like that because it left me with two very curt paragraphs, which I think isn't good prose. The current version merges all the critical reaction into one, and leaves the last sentence (which I think reads as the best "epitaph") where it was—how does that seem to you? --DeLarge (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy with how you left the last section. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)