Wikipedia:Peer review/Josh Hutcherson/archive2

Josh Hutcherson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I brought this article to GAN about a year ago and it was successful in that nomination. The end goal is a successful FAC. I attempted a peer review of this article before but it received not one comment of feedback. I brought it to FAC after that and received some helpful feedback, but nobody was commenting on it and it was eventually archived with no consensus to promote. I'm back again here for try #2, looking for some tips and ideas on how to best get this article ready to go for another FAC. Any and all help is appreciated! Gloss 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert at good article pages about famous people, but in the assumption that every tiny bit might help:

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Overall very good looking - neat structure and well cited.
A WP on referencing/citing (can't find the name immediately) recommended the use of one these formats in citations: YYYY-MM-DD or abbreviation into three letters of the month, so "21 January 2014" would become either "2014-01-21" or "21 Jan 2014".
In the "Awards and nominations" table, you should lump together the same years and if applicable also the organizations, just like in the Filmography table. It gives a better overview and a lighter look.
Below the picture in section "Personal life", the word "(right)" seems needless

Good luck! Please also take a look at my Peer Review, Kareldorado (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the review. However, I'm concerned with these requests. I've never heard of the recommended format being YYYY-MM-DD, would you mind linking to that guideline before I begin a load of work I'm not necessarily sure is necessary. For the table concern, per WP:ACCESS, the years are not supposed to be lumped together, rowspans are not supposed to be used. And as for the picture caption, the word (right) is included because the word (left) is also included (which I feel makes the most sense). Gloss 02:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Regarding the format, I hope to solve this issue this weekend. About the lumping: you (or other editors) DO lump together in the Filmography table and also the awards of 2013, why then? Where does Wikipedia disapprove of using rowspan (I would like to know it, made many tables myself...)? Writing "(right)" is of course not wrong, but not really needed IMO - you write a caption for two images and by specifying which is the first you discuss, you indicate the position of the other implicitly. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is rather considered "helpful" than "recommended", see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date formats. Personally I prefer DD MMM YYYY in citations (with the month in letters), but this is no must. The only thing that is recommended is consistency in date notation within the same article. Kareldorado (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's currently not consistent so I'm going to fix that as soon as possible. Gloss 20:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've taken care of. Gloss 23:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]