Talk:Alan Dale/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• "The character is the role Dale is most associated with, although he fell out with the producers over the low pay he and the rest of the cast received." The second half is not directly mentioned in the many body of the article.

• I was trying to sum up his quotes: "one of the things the company did was to market everything they could out of us and pay us nothing" and "parted on "bad terms"." I thought that was clear enough.

• I'm not sure. The main body and the quote doesn't imply "low pay" to me, rather "pay conditions" or "pay deal". Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed "low" so it just states he disputed the payment in general. Better?

Wider success

• "Dale only received a couple of auditions" Do you know exactly how many? A couple seems a bit vague.

• The source says "a couple", I don't know the exact number.

• No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• What profession was Al Patterson in ER? It's probably worth adding to increas the explanation a bit.

• I think he was a patient's relative, but I can't find any source to support it.

• According to this, I think you're right. I'm not sure it is that important for a source if one can't be found. Though it might be best to wait until you're 100% sure. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave it out.

Personal life

• "Since April 8, 1990[18] he has been married to the 1986 Miss Australia, Tracey Pearson, who he met at the 1986 Australian Grand Prix, when she was 21 and he was 39." I know why you've tried to change the tone of this sentence, I'd reword this to something like "On April 8, 1990, he remarried, ... Secondly, does the reference not refer to the entire wedding rather than just the date?
  • No, reference 1 refers to everything in that sentence, plus the quote. Reference 18 just refers to the date, which reference 1 does not mention. As for the sentence itself, I don't quite understand what you think needs to be reworded, it makes perfect sense to me.

• What the article says isn't wrong. But the way it's written, it emphasises the date rather than him remarrying. It entirely depends what relevance you want to refer to the date and/or the wedding. Peanut4 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Does the fact that he's re-marrying need to be mentioned? If you read the whole section, it becomes clear she is his second wife. I really think the sentence flows better as is, certainly better than any alternatives I can think of. Any suggestions? Gran² 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave the final decision up to you. I've been giving a brief thought, and my main suggestion would be to change "since" to "on" and then the most appropriate change of verb/tense. Peanut4 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise it's spot on. Really good work. I'll place it on hold until those points have been either addressed. I've also had to correct a couple of typos - I'd suggest just giving the article a read through next time you have a GAN or FAC, I'm as guilty of it too, but it helps out the reviewer. Peanut4 (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Gran² 07:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article. Top work. The main thing to do to improve it would be find some free use images. All the best with improving it further. Peanut4 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Gran² 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)