Talk:Ali Larter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi, I'm reviewing this for Good Article status. It looks good on most of the criteria, but it's a little shaky on the grammar. It's clearly-written, but the main grammar issue is that you don't know where to put commas. I may ask for a second opinion from another reviewer as to the style. Shouldn't be anything too difficult to get fixed. It looks like you're fine as far as NPOV, image use, stability, broad coverage, and reliable references. A couple of quick things stand out:

ref #1: Don't use an IMDB bio page as a reference. If you're using that as a source of the date of birth, as it appears that you did, then you can use her regular IMDB page. IMDB itself is a reliable source, but the bio pages may be fan-written, and we can't be sure whether they're fact-checked. Maybe you even wrote it. Don't cite it.

ref #23 (Prime-Time Emmys) is a dead link.

More later.

Reviewer: Dementia13 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Why is celebritywonder.com a reliable reference? You should be able to find a better source for any information presented there.

likewise, showbizspy.com quotes an unnamed US fitness magazine as its source. You should be referencing that magazine, not a blog site.

more blog sites: boxofficeprophets.com, slashfilm.com, huffingtonpost.com. Find better sources. Huffington Post (ref #61) quotes an Allure article, find that and cite it instead. I'm also dubious of this digitalspy.com.

ref #24 (Saturn Awards nominations) is expired

refs#43 & 44 both cite the same forbiddenplanet.com article. You should be referencing that article instead. You always want to get as close to the original source of information as possible.

I'm putting the article on hold to give you time to fix these. Do that, and I'll fix your grammar/stylistic issues myself, and pass the article. Dementia13 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for reviewing the article, I have a few problems. I've fixed a majority of the prolems suggested by you but the showbiz spy ref has been sourced by another website [1], does this mean it is reliable? What happens if I cannot find another source to support the information? 82.36.43.1 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not enough to make it a reliable source, but that site you gave gives a good clue: Shape magazine was the original source. That shouldn't be hard to find. Dementia13 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I found a reliable source and took the source in question down for you. I also added some other sources to strengthen to article. Usernamemehr (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, I like that there are now more print sources listed. Print sources are held to a level of responsibility and have an editor involved, while many or most online sources are free to print anything they want, true or not. There are still two blog sources that need to go: #40 (networkworld.com), which quotes an original article which is itself a blog; and slashfilm.com, which provides no information that couldn't be provided by a reliable source like IMDB. Let me point out a current internet trend, and how it relates to why one website referencing another is not necessarily evidence of reliability. There are a lot of websites now that pay cheap rates for content, and the only way a writer can make any money on these is by cranking out a lot of material. This requires a lot of regurgitating of other websites' material, and there's little to no oversight of the content. I'll always take a print source over an online source, although an online version of a print source is just as good (there are several listed here). BTW, I saw in the history where there was some dispute over the use of bloodydisgusting.com, but they are more of a newsfeed, and I have no problem with their being used as a source. Dementia13 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixing of the grammar :) I fixed the refs leading to slash film and network world. Anymore things to improve? 82.36.43.1 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions

I went through the entire article doing grammar and style cleanup, and I trimmed the lead slightly. The lead functions as an overview of and introduction to the article, so you want to give some facts in the lead while leaving most of the details for the main body of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information. Keeping in mind that the lead serves as a summary of the article, you're free to look at the article and decide if there are any major points that you feel belong in the lead; just think of it as a kind of teaser for what's to come in the article, instead of trying to explain anything in full detail. Dementia13 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

I believe that this article now meets all of the criteria for Good Article status. Good work. I think the coverage is reasonably broad without getting sidetracked on any tangents, or going into any irrelevant details. That's tricky to do, especially when covering someone whose career is little longer than 10 years. I don't see any NPOV problems: although it's uncommon to see a bio page that presents only positive information about its subject, I'm not aware of any controversies surrounding Ms. Larter, and I don't see anything with a "fannish", as opposed to an objective, tone to it. You've cleaned up the references in an article that was already well-supported by references. Good work, and as updates are made to the page, please continue to take care to use impeccable sources as references. Dementia13 (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]