Talk:Joe Alwyn/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BritneyErotica (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 14:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BritneyErotica:

Done all. ℛonherry☘ 12:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I should highlight a grey area I've noticed. Many Good Articles with actors have tables similar to yours. Some have empty Ref. columns, some have entirely full Ref. columns, and some have a bit of both. On some pages specifically for an actor's filmography, these tables are completely referenced. Realistically, it's actually best to have these Ref. columns filled with reliable sources (so I made a slight mistake recommending that if they aren't required to be removed).

If possible, you should reference each line in his Filmography and Discography. For example, in the Television table you could use this citation for A Christmas Carol and this citation for Conversations with Friends. These sources may help fast track this change: Joe Alwyn on Sweet Nothing and Joe Alwyn on Exile. Ensure these citations are as reliable as possible (all the others look good). BritneyErotica (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ℛonherry☘ 18:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

role

He and became a member of This was definitely an accident (a random new line) but should be fixed.

One more thing: There seems to be excessive wikilinking. If you read the main body of this article, you'll see a lot of blue (and many times a little of linked things in a single sentence). A lot of this is unnecessary. For example, I've seen the shows/movies linked in the short description (which is fine) but then linked every other time throughout the article. Generally, linking it in its first instance is sufficient.

See: In 2022, Alwyn starred in the drama series Conversations with Friends—a Hulu adaptation of the 2017 novel of the same name by Irish author Sally Rooney. I like how it links to the book as that could be useful, but the name of the series does not need to be linked again. Likewise, I see a lot of genres or general terms like "film adaptation" being linked (or "football" and "rugby"; the linked BA is good though). I think the easiest way to cut down on this over-linking issue is to remove wikilinks to general terms and linking more important words (such as links to a name or organisation) once when they are first mentioned.

You may find this page interesting in relation to this WP:LINKCRISIS. BritneyErotica (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done ℛonherry☘ 13:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I decided to be "be bold" (see: WP:BOLD) and make the final changes myself (including some basic copy editing and further reducing the over linking issue) as they were quite minor. Everything now looks good and I've gone ahead and passed this nomination. BritneyErotica (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Generally well written. Consider: Resolve this run-on sentence: "He also appeared in two 2022 films: paired with Margaret Qualley in the romantic thriller film Stars at Noon, directed by French filmmaker Claire Denis,[32] and in Lena Dunham's medieval comedy film, Catherine Called Birdy, based on the 1994 children's novel of the same name;[33] both the films were met with generally positive reviews,[34][35] with the former premiering at the 2022 Cannes Film Festival and winning the Grand Prix." Reword "garnering" in the following (I feel as if there are better words to describe his win): "...while Folklore won the Album of the Year, garnering Alwyn his first Grammy win." Wikilinking Hollywood in ""Hollywood's Most Private Leading Man"" probably isn't necessary
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the Filmography section, 3 tables have empty references columns. Those columns should be removed (consistent with other Good Articles in similar subject matters. Also because most link to separate articles that reference him).
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.	References contain an error.
	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).	FamilySearch is used as the first reference. This source is generally unreliable as per WP:RSP. Please find a reliable alternative. I'm not a fan of citation [2] as it doesn't seem to be supported in a full length article, or written by an author. I think there could be a more reliable source used for the information its provided.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I do have a personal recommendation I'd like to see. His career section seems to be more of a list of his roles as opposed to incorporating more of "him" into it. For example, how his role was met by critics. How did he feel about these roles? What were his experiences? See examples of other Good Articles on actors to gain inspiration for how this could be expanded WP:FILMBIO.
	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.
	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.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some simple feedback that should be resolved easily.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.