Talk:Henry Winkler/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 02:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
First round from Vaticidalprophet
|
---|
This is an article on a major pop-cultural figure that would be eligible for the rare honour of the Million Award. Accordingly, it's important we get it right. This is good work, but in my "reading a long article before picking it up to decide if I want to review" process, a number of minor but noticeable style issues jumped out at me; I'd like to get those worked out before we dig into the substance. There are recurring issues with reference order throughout the article (e.g. in the family history section alone, there's
Starting to go through the article! I'm currently in an awkward position with regards to computer access, but I'm doing my best. Lead[edit]
Family history (1939–1945)[edit]
Early life and education (1945–1970)[edit]
Early comments, more to come. Hope the list doesn't seem too dense -- this is good work. Vaticidalprophet 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You are a good editor - these are great suggestions. I used the article above to modify the sentence about his name - let me know if you have additional thoughts about how to frame these points. As for reference order, I came across an interesting bug in the wiki software. In regular "read" mode, I also saw that the references were out of order after you pointed it out. However, once I clicked on "edit" mode for both the section and later when I tried "edit" for the full article, the footnotes were not out of order. So I fixed them in "source" mode. Your timeline for editing works with my general schedule - so just get the edit changes to me when you can gain access to a computer. I'll check in once a day. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Career[edit]I should have more consistent computer access now :) I was reading through this article on my phone in the meantime, which brought to my attention some things about this section as a whole that are less obvious on desktop and worth considering before we start reviewing subsection-by-subsection. This is a very long section with a lot of subsections, which makes it difficult to navigate for mobile readers -- who are almost 80% of the readers of this article. (See full pageview stats here where the article gets about 116k views a month, and desktop-only stats here where it gets about 25k. The rest are mobile readers.) You can take a look at the article on a phone, or if that's not accessible for any reason use this link on a desktop (which doesn't quite get it across -- on mobile, all the section headers are collapsed by default -- but if you close the sections you'll see an idea). Because the headers are collapsed on mobile, that means the entire "Career" section works as a single section for mobile readers, and it's much harder than for desktop readers for them to navigate to a specific part (links to individual subsections don't work on mobile). This means that if someone on mobile only wants to read a single subsection (such as his work on Happy Days or with the Hank Zipzer books), it's very hard for them to find. I'd recommend breaking this section up into a few smaller subsections so the 80% of readers on mobile can navigate it more easily. Fortunately, you have some natural section breaks already. The 1970-1973, 1973-1984, 1984-2003, and 2003-present sections, which are all currently separate or semi-separate subsections, could be restructured into individual section headers and each subsection in them moved up a level accordingly. This would make the article a lot easier to read on mobile, or any other format where someone is accessing the mobile site and its collapsed-by-default section headers. Vaticidalprophet 01:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
More[edit]...aaaaa I just realized I left this hanging for a couple weeks. Sorry! I don't have any nitpicks for "Early career", although within the Happy Days section I'm inclined to draw your eye to the logical quotation issue. As far as I can tell every quote throughout the article has the full stop/period within rather than outside of quote tags, which is fine for most of them as they're generally quite long, but you have a couple examples where a short quote has that pattern, which comes apart from Wikipedia's house style. This isn't a huge deal, but it caught my eye. (It's probably worth paying attention to other examples in the article.) Otherwise, I don't have more-than-stylistic comments, and I hope to get to the rest of the sections in the next few days. Vaticidalprophet 03:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Additional re-org and headers[edit](Note: I added this to the article talk page first, so it didn't get added here. I am thus adding manually). @Vaticidalprophet: - I just made some tweaks to headers, sub-headers, and the overall structure of the career section. Take a look and let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions.
Brief comment from Aza24[edit]I looked at the Parks and Recreation page, and it seems that Winkler is not in the main cast, but rather a celebrity appearance. Now, I don't know how many episodes he was in, but it seems a very minor part of his career, so I question its inclusion in the lead, especially the lead's first paragraph! Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over[edit]Regrettably, Vaticidalprophet will not be able to continue the review. The nomination status has been changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
|
Comments from Aza24
[edit]Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fantastic feedback, thank you! I will start working on this either Sunday night or sometime on Monday. So no rush on your part.-Classicfilms (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now done with the comments below. I know there is now a lot to review. We can work on it again over next weekend if you like.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Lead and infobox
[edit]Being hard on the lead since most readers will (unfortunately) not read further)
- That's great. Let's see if I can get a bit done this evening...-Classicfilms (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Anything that "Raleigh Supercon" can be linked to in the image caption? Not sure what it is (GalaxyCon?)
- The "Adam Sandler's" in "Adam Sandler's The Waterboy" feels a bit out of place, usually lead actors aren't referred to possessively with their work like that, if anything it would be the director (e.g. "Frank Coraci's The Waterboy") but since you're not doing this for other media here, I would advise removal
- I would unlike "Gene Cousineau" as well, it just goes to a single sentence in the target article and its best to avoid a WP:Sea of blue anyways
- "won a small role" "Won" is a bit unusual imo, I suppose auditions are 'competitions' of sorts, but I've never heard of winning use in this way, perhaps just 'casted'/'cast'?
- maybe 'Bronze Fonz statue' instead? Usually its best to give enough context that the reader need not click the link to understand what's being referred to
- The above is Done.-Classicfilms (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Family history
[edit]- Consider linking née
- findagrave.com is not a reliable source (it is user-inputed information for the most part) so these sources almost certainly need to substituted or removed. Try here (accessible through the archive instead)
- the link to the holocaust article in "they were no longer safe" is a bit odd, and generally 'easter egg' links are discouraged. If the information is important, it might more prominently included, e.g. By 1939, rising hostilities against Jews meant..." the "knew that it was time." link also feels out of place
- Since the in the chronology of the article Winkler hasn't even been born yet, the "Almost 80 years after his parents had left Germany," comes as a big surprise. Maybe it would be better in the personal life section?
- The above is Done-Classicfilms (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Early life
[edit]- Is there a reason to have three references to support his older sister named Bernice... I mean surely her existence is not that controversial :)
- The order of ideas in the "Difficulties in school" feels unnatural, that is, one would expect the schools Winkler went to to be interested, and then his experience at them discussed, whereas right now the order is the opposite
- The "You want so badly to be able to" sits mainly next to the "Emerson College (1963–1967)" section on my screen, but it applies more readily to the "difficulties in school" one. Could it perhaps be moved to the top of that section? Though see the below as well
- Since you just used a quote box pretty recently, you might consider moving one of them to an inline quotation, such as at Orlando Gibbons#Late career ("On the 17th of May, Orlando Gibbons, one ...")
- I changed it to a blockquote. Check to see if you think it works, or if you have more suggestions.-Classicfilms (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Consider linking "fraternity"
- The linking in the "Yale School of Drama (1967–1970)" section needs another look-over; a few places, such as The Bacchae, are not linked at all (though some, such as The Rhesus Umbrella, do not have articles), while others such as Don Juan, link to the character's page, rather than a play. (The correct play for the latter is most likely The Trickster of Seville and the Stone Guest)
- Considering linking commedia dell’arte
- The link to "Mork put a spell on the Fonz", is again somewhat unexpected, and its not actually clear which episode is being referred to
Early career
[edit]- Julian the Hospitaler is an unexpected link as well (we would expect the play, not the person)
- The "He also performed in Two by Brecht..." sentence is phrased oddly. Is it not known which plays specifically were performed when? If it is, I would put couple their names with the dates
- consider linking cold reading to Cold reading (theatrical)
Happy Days...
[edit]- The "Happy Days and additional roles (1973–1984)" section as a whole is rather choppy. Could any of these small paragraphs at the beginning be combined?
- I moved some of the text to the section above (and changed the name of the section). Let me know if that works. I also rewrote the first paragraph. Let me know how the whole section now works.
- I'm not sure what "as the only one still standing" means, exactly, but it seems like maybe a bit un-encyclopedic
- "masked the difficulties he had " is an unnatural link
- "Winkler realized that he was as well" doesn't make sense—it sounds like Winkler realized that he was diagnosed with dyslexia as well, but one can't "realize a diagnosis"
- I rewrote the entire Dyslexia section. Let me know if it reads better, or if you have further suggestions.-Classicfilms (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- having "in 1979. In 1979" does not read very well
- The entire "In television, he was..." paragraph needs some copy editing. Almost every since begins with "In [year],..." creating a very unnatural and choppy structure
- I rewrote this section. Let me know if you have further suggestions.
- For all of the above, now DoneClassicfilms (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
After Happy Days
[edit]- The line beginning with "The company was ..." has a lot of commas, can this be smoothed out at all?
- More later... Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work thus far! I will plan to finish the review this weekend, and formally put the article on hold. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh sure, take your time. There is still quite a bit to cover. Thanks for your help!-Classicfilms (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Planning on finishing this in the next few hours, by the way. Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perfect! I will get started right now, thank you!-Classicfilms (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Planning on finishing this in the next few hours, by the way. Aza24 (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh sure, take your time. There is still quite a bit to cover. Thanks for your help!-Classicfilms (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Might be good to describe MacGyver, like "MacGyver tv series" or something
- Is there a reason Michael Tucker isn't linked?
- Thank you for catching an extreme oversight on my part (and I'm a big LA Law fan too...). Done-Classicfilms (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- The "main article" hat notes in the 'After Happy Days (1984–2003)' section don't really fit imo—the 'main article' in this context would be an article on Winkler's work with John Ritter, for example. Perhaps {{further}} is more appropriate here
- Might change up "good reviews" the second time to avoid redundant word choice? "positive reviews"?
- as the last comment illustrates, I am finding only minor things and less and less to comment on as I read on. I think the article is largely satisfactory as it stands. Putting on formal hold. Aza24 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Great! I have completed all of the suggestions above. Is there anything else I need to do? Thank you! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I think you're good. Imo, my comments had been more FA standard than GA, and I think the article certainly meets the GA requirements. Passing now, congrats! Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thank you so much for taking this on! Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, I think you're good. Imo, my comments had been more FA standard than GA, and I think the article certainly meets the GA requirements. Passing now, congrats! Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Great! I have completed all of the suggestions above. Is there anything else I need to do? Thank you! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)