Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Comments done for point a, comments done for point b.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Comments done for point a, comments done for point b, no original research, see comments for further comments on the point.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A pass for point a and b, see comments for further comments on the points each.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It seemed fair to me.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All the images are tagged; Comments for point b are done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Please see below also... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Picture comments:

   1. Could there be a date on the second picture?  Done

      I've put the approximate date on the picture. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Reference comments:

   1. Could the reference number be fixed here?:  Done

      From the end of 'Acting':

      ...As of early to mid-2011, Dylan and Cole are not in any acting projects and are focusing instead on college as well as art and photography, respectively.[20][21][18] However, Dylan has stated...

      Fixed. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

   2. 'gossipcenter.com' is not a reliable source (as of its name). Please see the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy reading:  Done

      “While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.”

      And:

      “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.”

      Removed reference and quote it was referencing from the article. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

3. MoS comments:

   1. WP:Lead:

      1. The lead is supposed to summarise and introduce the topic to the reader. It is fine, except you could fit in a word or two about their personal lives.  Done

         I've added a bit to the intro about their art/photography and how they are now in college. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

   2. WP:LAYOUT:

      1. The layout is fine, no comments to that.

   3. WP:Words to watch:

      1. I saw no words that introduce bias in this article.

   4. WP:Fiction:

      1. Not applicable here...

   5. WP:Lists:

      1. Not applicable here...

   6. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies:

      1. Consubstantial with the guideline.

   7. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

      1. Consubstantial with the guideline.

4. Prose comments:

   1. A section from the lead:

      “...one year, and they began attending the university in fall of 2011. In mid-2010,...”

      Can you spot anything that is wrong there, gramatically?

      Actually, no, I can't... and I'm typically a bit of a grammar snob. Are you referring to how the next sentence starts off mentioning an earlier year than the first one? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

      Thank-you for bringing that to my notice... The spot the difference between the upper one and:

      “...one year, and they began attending the university in the fall of 2011. In mid-2010,...”

      And that notice you arose was not valid in the context of the article. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

      Ah. Done. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Major aspects/Focused comments:

   1. Major aspects:

      1. I say that that point is satisfied...

   2. Focused:

      1. This is also focused on the topic, giving all the available information of them...

6. No original research:

   1. This, as far as I can see, contains no original research. All the points are addressed with reliable sources, bar that one that I mentioned in the 'References' section of this review.

7. Now, just a question. In Dylan and Cole Sprouse#Awards and nominations, there is a table. And I remember when there was more green in that table... The question is, was something deleted in there, data changed or was the table just vandalized?

   Some of the awards that were marked as "won" had no source, and I couldn't find one, so I removed them. The Celebrity Love awards used to have a section of the site that gives them out devoted to them, but that section now redirects to the main page, and the only reliable sources I could find made no mention of them winning any of them. Some others that were marked as "won" had reliable sources, but the sources stated that they were merely nominated instead of winning. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, then... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 18:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, some final words... I must say that I was impressed with your reference skill on this article. Do you Google for the references or what do you do? I have been very impressed by that...

Honestly, I have a bit of a vested interest in this article, and when it was delisted... well, y'know... no fury like a woman scorned and all that (not that I took it as a personal affront). So, since sourcing was one of the big problems, I Googled most of them, making sure the site was a reliable source and things like that. Then, some others were just common sense. Like how for the Kids Choice Awards, I'm pretty sure I went to one of the KCA articles and happened upon the source they were using for nominations, which was the official KCA press release site, which gave me every source I could ever need to prove someone won or was nominated for a KCA for the past nine years. So yeah, basically a LOT of intense searching. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The final verdict is going to be quite good... I am going to put this on hold for 5 days, to have the points adressed and it depends on if ou finish off the points above that this will pass. This is really close to passing, just mior details need to be adressed to attain GA status.

Now, just a few things you might want to know...:

• You are not the editor with the most edits on this article... The Top 3 are as follows:

 # User:Jack O'Lantern - 336 (4.3%) Last edit September 2007.
 # User:Zsero - 276 (3.5%) Last edit March 2010.
 # User:Malevious - 181 (2.3%) Last edit September 2007.

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of the second paragraph, there is a typo!Iluvmarchingband=) (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

PASS — Well done on bringing this article back to glory in the GA standards! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)