Wikipedia:Peer review/Shawn Ashmore/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I've extensively revised and expanded it from the ground up, with careful attention to sourcing, structure, and style. I'd appreciate feedback on its overall quality, especially in terms of comprehensiveness, neutrality, formatting, and whether it's on track for Good Article status.
Thank you! FrodoMarsh (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I can't really comment on content or sourcing (as I don't know much about acting or film), but here are a few comments to consider before heading to a GA review:
- As a general rule, it's a good idea to limit the number of single-sentence paragraphs. Two- or three-sentence paragraph aren't necessarily an issue, though I'd recommend trying to avoid having too many short paragraphs next to one another, as it can impact readability. Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media biographies lists a number of featured articles on actors, and they might give you an idea of what's ideal in this respect.
- I notice that there are two sentences that don't have sources (
The same year, he appeared ...
, andIn 2020, Ashmore recurred in the second ...
). The Good Article criteria (in particular, 2b at WP:GACR6) generally requires a citation at the end of each paragraph. - I notice ref 34 is a bare url, so I would recommend formatting that.
- You'll probably only be asked about these points later down the track, but they're worth noting now: images should have WP:ALTTEXT, and try to avoid the use of fixed pixel width (MOS:UPRIGHT has some explanation on this).
- I think there are a few relevant links which could be added in the article's main text. Scanning it over, this would include Gemini Award, Saturn Award, Ged (Earthsea), Chad Archibald, etc. (and I'd suggest checking for others).
- While we do mention it in the table at the end of the article, the award he received for Legend of Earthsea is included in the lead, which would suggest to me that it should probably be mentioned in the article's main text.
Feel free to ask any follow-up questions, and best of luck with the GA review. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your helpful comments! I believe I’ve implemented all of your feedback and appreciate you taking the time. I may move it toward GA review soon. FrodoMarsh (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- No problem! Those changes all look good. If I were the GA reviewer at the moment, the only thing that'd jump out at me is the paragraph lengths (to randomly pick out a comparable FA as an example, cf. the paragraph lengths at Angelina Jolie). I'm unfortunately not going to be much help in advising how you could try to lengthen them (given my lack of knowledge in the topic area), though good general approaches would include combining adjacent paragraphs where appropriate and trying to include more detail about individual acting roles where possible. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I’ve expanded on roles where I can, added critical reception, and merged short paragraphs per your suggestion. I'll let it settle for a while before the next move, and really appreciate your guidance. FrodoMarsh (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- No problem! Those changes all look good. If I were the GA reviewer at the moment, the only thing that'd jump out at me is the paragraph lengths (to randomly pick out a comparable FA as an example, cf. the paragraph lengths at Angelina Jolie). I'm unfortunately not going to be much help in advising how you could try to lengthen them (given my lack of knowledge in the topic area), though good general approaches would include combining adjacent paragraphs where appropriate and trying to include more detail about individual acting roles where possible. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)