# Talk:Laura Harrier

This review is transcluded from Talk:Laura Harrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MonkeyStolen234 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Is there enough information on the page for it to be classed as worthy of a Good Article? I know I'm being biased, but I've never seen a Good Article nom/official page be this short before...


### Comments from Kingsif
Hi, I'll do the second opinion here. I'll also leave some other general comments as there aren't many comments above. In response to the original reviewer's query @MonkeyStolen234: a GA can be any length as long as it is appropriate - and this isn't just what kind of article (your comment suggests expecting an official page, which I assume to mean 'actor bio', to be long) it is. For examples, two of my GAs are The Monroe Doctrine (1896 film) and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World: both films, but very different lengths. Kingsif (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio clear
One free image
infobox suitable
I don't think the filmography is long enough to need to be split into two tables
There's a personal instagram post used as a source (currently [3]), but I don't see what it's actually sourcing? I think it could be removed
Other sources generally good, wide coverage
Filmography is almost entirely lacking in refs
There is recent talkpage discussion about coverage of modelling that has not been resolved, suggesting the article may not be stable. It would be worth checking with the nominator about this
Tone is a little bit promotional
Examples of this in phrasing that can be tweaked include: Harrier was first recognized, Harrier will next star in Bios with Tom Hanks which is set to premiere on October 2, 2020
The sentence She has turned up on the pages of Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and Glamour. sounds not even like a press release, but like an agent's line. A simpler, humbler, phrasing would be better - even better would be to incorporate this information.
It may be issues with incorporation that cause some of this tone: e.g. the repetition of the simple "however the pilot was not picked up", in context, can sound like it intends to promote her, but could just be bland writing
Wikilinks are used oddly. For example, web series does not need one, but pilot might.
Is Caucasian accurate? I suggest changing to 'white'. (I know it's often used by overly-PC Americans to mean 'white', but that doesn't make it correct; the disambiguation page points to white people for this use)
I'd suggest expanding Liz to the character's full name at least once
Like with the wikilinks, there's odd use of 'Harrier' vs. 'she' - in different paragraphs, both seem overused without swapping in the other, which affects readability. The overuse of short and simple sentences makes this more obvious/worse, so more variation would help
Some of the paragraphs could be combined, since they're quite short. Especially in the modelling part.
Are her magazine covers modelling or relating to her acting career? This should be made clear - though if it's promoting her acting, they should be removed.
Since personal life is a single sentence, could it merged into early life, under an 'Early and personal life' header?
I recommend leaving this  On hold for seven days. At least needs more filmography refs before passed. I would encourage some more inventive prose in the career section, but the length seems fine. Kingsif (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif:, thanks for your help. —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: 

Harrier doesn't play Liz Allan, she simply plays Liz and the character is credited in the film as simply Liz. This is sourced in the article.
When you say Wikilinks are used oddly, beside web series, is there anything else that's oddly linked?
The Instagram reference, #3, is a source for her middle name "Ruth".
I fixed her mother's race name from Caucasian to white
Why would her filmography have to have references? For instance Jennifer Lawrence is an actress and her Wikipedia article is a featured article yet none of her filmography is sourced so why should Harrier's be? Josh Hutcherson, Amanda Seyfried, Freida Pinto, Aaron Sorkin, John Barrowman, Kate Beckinsale, and Kate Bosworth, among others, are all featured articles and good articles respectively and all of them have no refs for the filmography sections.
I fixed the "turned up on the pages" part under "Modeling and fashion" but how exactly should I edit the part about her starring in Bios with Tom Hanks? It seems fine to me and I can't really think of another way to write it properly.
You mention switching between using Harrier and she throughout but how do you recommend I fix this? You never gave a solution
I've never seen personal life and early life combined in a good article, and that certainly isn't the case in any of the aforementioned actors' articles. It's also a notable fact that she dated Klay Thompson who is a famous basketball player so it should be it's own thing.
The reason why filmography is separate is because I feel that to put everything together would take away from the notability or importance of the projects. She's had two famous notable roles in TV: One Life to Live and Hollywood. She's had two big blockbusters: Spider-Man: Homecoming and BlacKkKlansman and has two more major blockbusters coming out rather soon. So to put everything together sort of lessens the importance. Visually it also looks better to separate and it's easier for readers to digest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfanatic1 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's the thing: this article is much shorter than all of those you compare it to. As said above, it's fine to be short if the coverage is good, but different article lengths obviously make different articles. You'll note that some parts of those other filmographies have sources: the parts that aren't sourced in the rest of the article. The same should be done here. See, I have seen early and personal life combined in other articles, including GAs. And, the Thompson thing is one sentence, I'm not sure it's really all that notable (there's nothing included in the article about it, despite three sources attached): it doesn't deserve its own section. The filmography also is not that long, you even only said she has four notable roles, and the idea that you think these roles would look lesser if put all together is not how it works: a biography is supposed to be practical, not promotional. Kingsif (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Factfanatic1: There's now sources for the filmography item; have you given thought to the personal life section? Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: What do you mean by "there's now sources for the filmography item"? Did you mean there are no sources? For the personal life section, I feel that we can either get rid of it or leave it as is. Factfanatic1 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I meant 'now'... or was that extra source not added by you? The inline sources in the career section cover most of the filmography, but a few weren't mentioned/didn't have a clear citation, which has either been fixed or I missed a source before. For personal life, it seems notable enough to include, but not to get a whole section to one line. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I guess I added a source. I fixed or added many to all of the sources for her filmography in her career section. For the personal life section, I'd just like to see if I could get maybe one more opinion and then we can decide if we'll keep it as is or combine it with the "Early Life" section. The reason why I'm not keen on combining is because it's easy for readers in terms of readability as her article is chronological so to me it messes with the order of things. That's why I'd like another opinion. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Factfanatic1: That's fine - I could leave a message at the biography WikiProject to ask for an opinion? Kingsif (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Yeah, sounds good. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Factfanatic1: There doesn't seem to be any reply, I could ask at GAN, perhaps? While I'm at it, if there's any prose about her career you can add - about the roles or why she took them, or anything to make it more than a prose list, that would be something to improve the quality while we wait. Kingsif (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Got it. I’ll definitely due further research and add more information within the next 12 to 24 hours. Factfanatic1 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I just added as much information as I possibly could that was pertinent to the article. I included pretty much everything I could find online that was relevant and reliable. The reason why there's so little information on her earlier roles is because there literally is no information out there on them either because she was an unknown in the role or the project was cancelled before it aired and so it never reached the light of day. Harrier is also quite a private person that's part of it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

On the topic of the Personal life section, MOS:LAYOUT says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading". I concur with Kingsif that it would be better merged into the Early life section. Note that this is a practice that is used in some Featured articles, such as Joseph Barbera, so it is certainly not without precedence. Harrias talk 08:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif:@Harrias: I just added much more information under her "Personal life" section as well as a bit more info in her "Career" section. Let me know what you both (or anyone else reviewing this) thinks please. Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Made some edits because... yeah, tracking the history of her houses is overkill. Even for a bigger bio it would be. Looks good enough to pass now. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif:@Harrias: I have two more questions. How can I spread the word about this being a Good Article page on this site? And when I look under this page's page views, why does it say that this page is "Start" class even though it's a Good Article? How can I change that? Factfanatic1 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Factfanatic1: To 1: are you aware that it's weird that you want to do that? People who are interested will find it, there is no reasonable need to try advertising it. 2. the bot takes a while to update, just be patient. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Coming upon the seeming pejorative of Spike Lee demanding the actor's immediate presence, next day in NY, from Greece, and this sounding suspect, I checked the source. This language did not appear—indeed, the word "demanded" is nowhere in the cited source. Moreover, there is not even an implied tone to any part of the interaction from which one could rightly editorially decide to say he imposed upon the actor. (I therefore edited the sentence, to reflect the actual content of the source.)
It is possible that the word "demanded" appears in another source describing the events; this must fall on the original or another editor to determine, and to make the edit—addition of the second source—that actually allows this strong, even judgmental language about the referenced living individual. Apart from identifying a source that makes the case for this, the original wording should not be returned. (Per WP guidelines, BLP expectations obtain beyond the titular subject, if others that are referred to are also living subjects of the article.) Note also, when supporting such a claim about the individual or event, it is insufficient to have the inline citation nearby. Having the one citation at end of sentence implies that one as source of all sentence content. If some is drawn from a second source, that citation must also appear, for the editing task to be complete. 
Finally, and more generally, as one who has read many, many student papers, I realise it is not uncommon for creative license to enter in, as one attempts to paraphrase published source content. However, editor's inferences that alter the actual dynamic between people as stated in the source cannot be permitted—this amounts to editorialising, and is prohibited at WP—and discovering even the one example raises the specter that editor's involved here may lack experience in doing acceptable paraphrasing from sources. This suspicion should be laid to rest. 
As such, good article designation notwithstanding, I propose it necessary for an experienced WP editor with WP:BLP experience to begin a review the content, sentence by sentence, against the cited source or sources, ensuring that this "demanded" slip up is not representative of a broader pattern of misuse of sources. (This may be seen as an overreaction, but I regularly find such creative license in WP articles, as often as not, in those representing figures from popular American culture.)
I may be incorrect in worrying so, but the way to lay it to rest is to begin a check, paragraph by paragraph, and report here what is found. (My other commitments to other subject areas here prohibit me from being the one to dive in.) I invite the regular editors of this article to take the lead. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:B064:18F2:5274:6CE2 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)