| Revision as of 02:23, 6 June 2017 editHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →Personal life sourcing and SYNTH concerns from Hijiri88← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:03, 6 June 2017 edit undoAffeL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,562 edits →Personal life sourcing and SYNTH concerns from Hijiri88Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| :::I have reverted your mass removal of the content below. I added those comments because they are relevant to GA review (maintenance tags were removed without the issues being addressed, and said maintenance tags would have auto-failed this GA review if they had been allowed to remain). BLP articles that contain contentious/unsourced material cannot be Good Articles. If/when the problem is addressed, the discussion below can be ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | :::I have reverted your mass removal of the content below. I added those comments because they are relevant to GA review (maintenance tags were removed without the issues being addressed, and said maintenance tags would have auto-failed this GA review if they had been allowed to remain). BLP articles that contain contentious/unsourced material cannot be Good Articles. If/when the problem is addressed, the discussion below can be ]. ] (<small>]]</small>) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| <!-- cap created with ] --> | |||
| === Personal life sourcing and SYNTH concerns from Hijiri88 === | |||
| {{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments|=== Personal life sourcing and SYNTH concerns from Hijiri88 === | |||
| Not going to preemptively overhaul this review, but per I think that the sentence about him being in a relationship with his ''GOT'' co-star needs either | Not going to preemptively overhaul this review, but per I think that the sentence about him being in a relationship with his ''GOT'' co-star needs either | ||
| *(a) to be sourced to a single reliable source that explicitly supports the full claim which is not ], | *(a) to be sourced to a single reliable source that explicitly supports the full claim which is not ], | ||
| Line 43: | Line 44: | ||
| :::::::::::::::::Putting scare-quotes around serious BLP concerns that have been recognized by multiple editors is not going to endear you to the community, and I now deeply suspect that some of your other past GA and FL noms should be reassessed, if you still seriously don't understand the problem with claiming someone has been in a romantic relationship for four years longer than they are willing to publicly acknowledge. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::::Putting scare-quotes around serious BLP concerns that have been recognized by multiple editors is not going to endear you to the community, and I now deeply suspect that some of your other past GA and FL noms should be reassessed, if you still seriously don't understand the problem with claiming someone has been in a romantic relationship for four years longer than they are willing to publicly acknowledge. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::::::: I'm lost, is their anything else? any more stuff you think needs to be fixed?, or are you just gonna write a long comment back saying basically nothing? - ] (]) 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::::: I'm lost, is their anything else? any more stuff you think needs to be fixed?, or are you just gonna write a long comment back saying basically nothing? - ] (]) 01:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::::::::If I find any more problems I'll report back. I still haven't checked the new sources (which don't appear to be the same ones you presented here) to see that they fully verify the content as it appears now. I know the HuffPost one does by itself, so I don't fully understand why five separate citations are needed. I can say for certain even without checking the details that the ''Hollywood Life'' citation from 2012 should be removed. It was just speculative rumour when it was published, and is useless for the claim that they are currently dating. Other than that, I have no specific complaints at the moment, so this section can be collapsed. When you figure out what to do with the photo, the same can be done with the section below. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC) | :::::::::::::::::::If I find any more problems I'll report back. I still haven't checked the new sources (which don't appear to be the same ones you presented here) to see that they fully verify the content as it appears now. I know the HuffPost one does by itself, so I don't fully understand why five separate citations are needed. I can say for certain even without checking the details that the ''Hollywood Life'' citation from 2012 should be removed. It was just speculative rumour when it was published, and is useless for the claim that they are currently dating. Other than that, I have no specific complaints at the moment, so this section can be collapsed. When you figure out what to do with the photo, the same can be done with the section below. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)}} | ||
| ===Infobox photo=== | ===Infobox photo=== | ||
Revision as of 11:03, 6 June 2017
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 15:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll put comments soon, meanwhile I'd really appreciate it if you could review this for GA. Thanks either way. NumerounovedantTalk 15:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: Just letting you know if you have forgot. - AffeL (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted your mass removal of the content below. I added those comments because they are relevant to GA review (maintenance tags were removed without the issues being addressed, and said maintenance tags would have auto-failed this GA review if they had been allowed to remain). BLP articles that contain contentious/unsourced material cannot be Good Articles. If/when the problem is addressed, the discussion below can be collapsed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: Just letting you know if you have forgot. - AffeL (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
| Resolved comments |
|---|
| {{{2}}} |
Infobox photo
For the record, I also think that the photo in the lead is the worst of our three current photos of him. Yes, it is slightly more up-to-date (three years old as opposed to four or six years old), but he's staring right into the camera and squinting, apparently because of whatever that light source is that one can see reflecting off his face. I think that it should be switched out of the lead in favour of one of the others currently further down in the article. And my thinking this is not "vandalism" either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- That edit was vandal, as you can see the user removed "| birth_name = Christopher Catesby Harington" from the infobox. But I agree that the picture should be changed. I think to "File:Kit Harington Comic-Con 2011.jpg" would be good. - AffeL (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Per your latest edit to my user talk page, I can accept that you now understand that accidentally, or even deliberately, removing some piece of information in good faith cannot be called "vandalism", but just to clarify: if what you were actually referring to was the removal of the redundant "birth name" parameter (as far as I can tell, he has not formally changed his name, so calling his full name his "birth name" is misleading, and removing it made sense), then your edit summary "removed vandalism" made no sense as the "vandalism" you were referring to would itself have been a removal. Anyway, it's peripheral to this GA review, but please refrain from using the words "vandal" and "vandalism" from now on. It comes across as attempting to game the system by preemptively declaring every revert you make as automatically being an exception to 3RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- You can dare to look at the edit history and see how often the photo is changed. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Moved the above misplaced response here from the main talk page, as it might be relevant to the stability criterion for GA, Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- You can dare to look at the edit history and see how often the photo is changed. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Per your latest edit to my user talk page, I can accept that you now understand that accidentally, or even deliberately, removing some piece of information in good faith cannot be called "vandalism", but just to clarify: if what you were actually referring to was the removal of the redundant "birth name" parameter (as far as I can tell, he has not formally changed his name, so calling his full name his "birth name" is misleading, and removing it made sense), then your edit summary "removed vandalism" made no sense as the "vandalism" you were referring to would itself have been a removal. Anyway, it's peripheral to this GA review, but please refrain from using the words "vandal" and "vandalism" from now on. It comes across as attempting to game the system by preemptively declaring every revert you make as automatically being an exception to 3RR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- That edit was vandal, as you can see the user removed "| birth_name = Christopher Catesby Harington" from the infobox. But I agree that the picture should be changed. I think to "File:Kit Harington Comic-Con 2011.jpg" would be good. - AffeL (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)