Talk:Elijah Wood/GA2

GA Review

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: Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 22:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) by Cocobb8

Estimated finish date: March 5, 2024

Status:  Done:  Passed

100% reviewed

   

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

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

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)

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

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

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

Overall:

Comments:

@Chiswick Chap: @Lord Theoden: I am starting this review. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions during the review process. Thanks! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs)

The article reads really well, but I do have some comments following my first read-through:

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• In the "Early life" section, most sentences start with "he" or "his". Starting the sentence with other words would help avoid that repetition pattern.
  • Edited.

• He got his first break in the music video for Paula Abdul's "Forever Your Girl," directed by David Fincher. What break? The meaning of that word is a little unclear.
  • Edited.

• The pilot was shot in the summer of 2010 (...). Which pilot?
  • Edited. A television pilot is a test episode shot to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed series.

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for fixing that! I also took a look at the previous denied GAN. Giving the article a second read, I can see that most of the issues listed there have been fixed. I would however want to go back to this paragraph of GA1, which states that the second paragraph of the lead is kinda a laundry list of all the films Wood has appeared in, with no note to which were significant in his career. The lead should aim to establish why he is notable and what was significant to him/his career.. I'd like to see that list of movies in the second paragraph of the lead scaled down a little to keep Wood's major movies and shows.

• Trimmed as requested.

I also see that the 2004-present section stops his filmography in 2017, though he featured in movies since, as mentioned by the previous reviewer. I'd love to see those two things fixed before I can move on with checking out criteria 3a) and 3b).

• Extended as requested.

I am however happy to see that the article excellently complies with Manual of Style guidelines, as well as being easily understandable, so I will validate criteria 1a) and 1b).

• Noted.

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you, it looks great now! Giving the article another read, I can say that the article summarizes the key points very well and is broad in its coverage, so I will validate criteria 3a) and 3b). I am also happy to see that there is no original research, and that the article is written from a neutral point of view.

Here's me doing a couple random spot-checks to check reference verifiability:

Wood was born in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on January 28, 1981, the second of three children (...). Partially verified with source, but I can't seem to find whether he was second of three children or not. I'd like to see that statement referenced as it can easily be challenged. I'll validate this one when that is removed or a reference is added to confirm that.

Removed.

Thank you, that checks out criteria 2b)

He was selected from 150 actors who auditioned [in the Lord of the Rings]. Verified with source.

Before the cast left the country, Jackson gave Wood two gifts: one of the One Ring props used on the set and Sting, Frodo's sword. He was also given a pair of prosthetic "hobbit feet" of the type worn during filming. Verified with source, though the reliability of that could be questioned due to it being an interview.

For his role, Wood received a nomination for the Satellite Award for Best Actor – Television Series Musical or Comedy in 2011. Verified with source.

I am happy to see that the list of references is very properly formatted. I ran IAbot and Citation Bot, both of which did not find anything to fix.

I checked the article's history and talk page, no edit war or content dispute going on.

Proper media is used all throughout the article, all of which are tagged with relevant copyright tags.

@Chiswick Chap: This concludes my review of this article! Cheers Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

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.