Talk:Matt Bomer/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is not my strongest area as an editor and I will likely have some quibbles (and/or some corrections I make myself) when I do my detailed read but overall this criteria is largely met.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"He is known for his versatility of his performances in successful independent films" is WP:PEACOCK prose in the second sentence of the LEAD. A general read through with this kind of language in mind should be done. The LEAD is also not a MOS compliant summary of the article omitting certain sections all together while being overly detailed in others.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In general this article seems to use more sources than is necessary to support the information. For instance "Bomer married publicist Simon Halls in 2011; the marriage only became public to the media in 2014" is fully supported by each of the two functional links (neither the GQ link or its putative archive version work), so why are there two? My guess is that 10 - 25 percent of the current sources are superfluous.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Huge strides have been done with this criteria. I was expecting to have this be on hold pending my detailed read given that there aren't any remaining sources that are obviously bad to use (e.g. previous inclusion of IMDB and Daily Mail) and I will have to more carefully examine some sources as RS that I'm unfamiliar with. However, there remain a couple citation needed templates. Perhaps a few of the sources from criteria 2a can be repurposed to cite this information?
	2c. it contains no original research.	The issues noted above are the opposite of OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Should be noted that other sites come up on Earwig as a match here but as best I can tell they are all copying from Wikipedia and as such there is no COPYVIO.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comparing it to other GAs of current actors, this covers the areas one would expect. However it fails to put Bomer's parts and career in any kind of context. There are a few general critics quotes but little that focuses directly on Bomer. In a good article, I am skeptical that White Collar would receive roughly the same length of coverage as Viper Club. How do the highest quality sources put his career in context?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article feels written by fans. While most (but certainly not all, with one such example mentioned above) of the PROMO language has been made neutral, it remains relentlessly positive in its coverage of him. I am guessing he hasn't received glowing reviews for every performance especially given that some movies were critically panned. As an example, a quick search suggests his casting in Anything was criticized (e.g. [1]) but this isn't mentioned in the article. I am not enough of a Bomer expert to know what all is missing with what I'm writing here and in 3A but I am aware enough of Bomer, Hollywood, and Wikipedia artile writing to know stuff is missing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	While technically not required for GA, pics should really have alts for the visually impaired or those who are browsing with images turned-off.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussion

Govvy 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Govvy: 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)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thank you, will have another run through when I have a chance, I was also hoping that Reehdelrey would review the notes and help the article. Govvy (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, 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)[reply]

Barkeep49 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)[reply]

Govvy, 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)[reply]