Talk:Dianna Agron/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 01:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll gladly take a look, starting with the basic readability. (I just got distracted watching four episodes of It's a Mall World.) -- Zanimum (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - haha, how is it? I know the 00s were a good time for webseries but it sounds like a long-form commercial :/ Kingsif (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've seen the first four episodes so far, and there's surprisingly very little about the store. While some shots show the AE sign, subtly in the background, it's mostly just a reason for the record shop employee lead to be able to see Agron's character easily from his store, and become infatuated with her. Its short run-time means that the plots never overstay their welcome.

About to start deciphering my notes. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zanimum: That may be the most complete review the show has got. Thank you for the review below, during the pandemic I really wanted a "project" to keep me focused as everything else got hectic, and I picked improving this article. If you look at the es.wiki version, it basically looked like that (but in English) before, and I am proud of the turnaround here. I was unsure about the sourcing structure myself at first - I use it often for film articles, but wondered about its appropriateness for a BLP, especially with a lot of refs. I also worried about the section structure, first basing it on that used at Scarlett Johansson and then on that at Taylor Swift. The differences seem to be interpretive rather than strictly formatted. Any feedback on these choices would be very welcome! Kingsif (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll follow up with a formal, templated evaluation tomorrow, once I've had a chance to review the references in detail.

But overall, you've written a winner. Very little at all for me to pick at. You've managed to cover an incredible amount of information without it seeming long, depth without anything seeming inconsequential.

The less common style of references threw me initially, but I'm actually now quite intrigued with the possibilities. You've given it such a clean, structured approach to that section, like a printed publication. I quite appreciate the sorting of sources based on type, and then the hidden wikicode <!--A--> to help with organization. Kudos, of course, on pulling out relevant quotes, where applicable. That makes it much easier on readers, looking for more info. I also appreciate the notes, footnotes to isolate infomation that doesn't naturally fit with the rest. Overall: it's a showcase of what more article here should be doing, for the sake of reader.

I love that a thesis is cited! Very unexpected for an article about a modern entertainment figure, yet completely appropriate information, context.

I was a bit off-put by the authentic pronunciation of Agron's surname, and had noted "should it be the real pronunciation, or should it be the way she says it?" But I see there's an explanation below, so that's good.

Normally when reviewing an article on GA, I make a number of small changes here and there, only listing larger changes. I couldn't find any spelling or grammatical mistakes. Throughout the entire article, I only raised an eyebrow twice:

• The source says that she attended Jewish day school "through" third grade, which I read to be all years up to and including third grade, whereas "until" third grade, I read as if the change happened before the start of that grade. aka was third grade the last year in Jewish day school, or the first year in public school? It's not a big deal, but I'm wondering if it might be worth considering the wording.

• "...Agron had been to over thirty auditions for a small part in a different musical..." I was like, "wait, she attended an audition with 29 callbacks for one part?", as both small part and musical are singular. The way she phrases it in the source quote is clearer.

These are really just nitpicking, but they're the only notes I can give you. You've done a stellar job of getting it in order. After you've gotten it in DYK, immediately go for FAN.

Anyway, I'll try and take a look at the references on Tuesday, and then do the formal GAN evaluation for the pass. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; last night I checked references 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 95, 110, 125, 140, 155, 170, 185, 200, 215, 230, 245, 260, 275, 295, 310, 325, 340, and 355. They all passed verification with flying colours. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Official review:

1. Well written?: Accurate, clear, focused, polished. Nothing that requires prior knowledge of the person profiled. Sections well chosen, information in the lede is reflected in the rest of the article.

2. Verifiable?: A tenth of references were checked, as well as any a random selection of others in the first read-through. No trouble verifying any of them. A good portion of references actually have relevant portions as quotes within the template. No original research, copyvios. No claims that could be challenged. All sources are either widely known to be reliable, are connected to a reliable institution (like museums), or if less known, are inherently reliable by nature of being based on direct interviews, reviews, or other reliable reporting.

3. Broad in coverage?: Broad but focused.

4. Neutral point of view?: No real viewpoints to represent, as Agron is largely "drama free" by intention.

5. Stable?: Stable.

6. Images?: Even has video, which is uncommon on Wikipedia. Surprisingly three images from US government sources, thus public domain. Of the remainder, one of the uploaders has mixed in copyrighted images with her own personal free licensed photos, however being an entertainment reporter of note, she would have had access to the Hollywood party the photo was taken at, and the image was taken on a consumer grade camera, so there's no reason to doubt it's her image.

Bravo, GA. — Zanimum (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)