Wikipedia:Peer review/Bella Ramsey/archive1: Difference between revisions

I’ve listed this GA article for peer review ahead of a featured article nomination. (750+ has kindly offered to mentor me through the process.) I believe the page meets FA criteria as a comprehensive summary of Bella Ramsey’s life and career, but would appreciate any comments people had ahead of submission.

Thanks, Crp74 (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citation notes:

• Some works are linked to their articles (e.g. Nottingham Post), some are not (e.g. The Independent); aim to have uniformity, aka all linked or all not.
• Some works are their common names, while some are domains, e.g. www.metacritic.com., and some are incorrectly capitalised like the BBC (“bbc”).
• Some more specific citation templates could be used, e.g. cite magazine where cite web is used for Cosmopolitan
• Overreliance on primary sources; like a source to Vimeo for a short film, which I think is inappropriate (and, although likely uploaded by the copyright holder, could raise some questions if not fully confirmed), and the source to personal social media accounts; mostly a problem in filmography section.
• Again, lack of uniformity in citations. Some have authors names, some don’t; would be preferred for authors to be listed for all, if credited.
• Lack in uniformity in whether publisher/website/work is used in citations.
• Some sources may not have the reliability expected of FAs – e.g., Valnet, which owns Collider, is described as mass quantity over quality to churn out mind-numbing SEO bait, a content mill, borderline like almost sweatshop-level, junky clickbait content on its Wikipedia page.

I personally think this is far from FAC at the moment, but don’t let it discourage you – keep improving the article 🙂 jolielover♥talk 15:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Jolielover: and apologies for not replying sooner (for some reason I didn’t get a notification). I’ll work on these comments this week with the help of my mentor, and I’ll provide a more comprehensive reply once done. Crp74 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jolielover:. Thanks again for your comments. With the help of some other editors I think I’ve pushed through all the changes to the citations to reflect your comments. Couple of things to mention.

• For each primary source I’ve added a secondary source where available to keep the links to the work in question as that feels helpful to readers.
• On the reliability of sources I’ve checked with WikiProject Film resources and it says: “For example, this Collider article on A Real Pain is explicitly labeled as a review and its prose is primarily focused on reviewing the film, so it could be used as a source.” As I’ve used Collider only for reviews or factual pieces as opposed to opinion pieces I think that is OK? I also see that Collider is used as a reference in the FA article on Tom Holland.
• For Screen Rant W:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says that “There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.” I also see that Screen Rant is used as a reference in the FA article on Chris Pratt So I think that is also OK?Crp74 (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do a full review at some point, but a few notes from a quick skim:

• “known for their breakthrough role as young noblewoman Lyanna Mormont in the HBO fantasy television series Game of Thrones (2016–2019) and as Ellie in the HBO post-apocalyptic drama series” — implies they were both their breakthrough role; is this the case? If so, “role” should probably be plural
• “really didn’t enjoy mainstream secondary school and [weren’t] happy” — feels like this could be easily paraphrased
• The “Early life” section seems quite short for an actor who is quite well-known. I haven’t looked for any sources but could it possibly be expanded?
• Can you have a “main role” in a television film?
• GIRLBAND! — why is this in italics and should it be in lowercase?
• Cosmopolitan, The Standard, Screen Rant and Decider are not high-quality reliable sources. Are Nottingham Post, LeftLion, King’s InterHigh, Happy Sad Confused and Urban Woman Magazine HQRSes? Pamzeis (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pamzeis:. Many thanks for your comments. I’ll review these but just as a starting point there is one thing worth mentioning up front as it might also be a focus for other reviewers:

• There is very little information on Ramsey’s early life for two reasons: first, they started acting full time from the age of 11; second, Ramsey is very protective of their family so there is no publicly available information on who they are, where they live/lived, and what they do etc. As Ramsey grew up in a village the local schools and clubs that Ramsey attended have also removed all information on them from their websites.Crp74 (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pamzeis: Running down your other comments:

(1) I’ve pushed that through so thanks.

(2) I’ve retained as is for now as it’s a direct quote but will see if it’s picked up by other reviewers (and I do get your point that it’s a bit clumsy).

I’m hesitant as to whether this complies with MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG, since it doesn’t seem to be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea; IMO, quotation usage should be as limited as possible.

(3) As discussed above.

(4) I’ve retained as is. As far as I can tell a “main role” simply means a role of primary importance, and this applies across film, television, and television films so it’s medium-agnostic. I couldn’t find any specific Wiki guidance that cuts across that.

My understanding differs a bit, since I think it’s denoted by the show/film’s credits; it’s changed a bit since the introduction of streaming, but I think that with television, a main role is someone whose names appears in the opening credits and then during the closing credits, guest stars/co-stars/etc. will be credited as such. Is this the case in the Hilda film? Otherwise, I’d be concerned about it falling under OR

(5) I’ve retained as the band name is capitalised (see https://girlbandhq.com/)

I can’t open the link ATM, but does “GIRLBAND” stand for anything? Otherwise, I think it’d be lowercase per MOS:ALLCAPS (see Twice or Blackpink as examples)

(6) I’ve retained as the GA nomination reviewer checked all the references using WP:CITEUNSEEN and all issues were dealt with then. The conversation can be viewed at W:Talk:Bella_Ramsey/GA1. Let me know if you think that something has been missed once you’ve had a look.

I still feel quite ambivalent, since the citation standards for FAs are a lot higher than GAs and CiteUnseen is not the be-all-end-all for citation reliability. Pamzeis (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Crp74 (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Full review. I’m gonna try not to screw anything up:

• “Ramsey enjoyed art, music, writing and football, while performing with local amateur theatre groups, including Stagecoach Theatre Arts” — is a bit clunky
• “After their debut in the sixth season episode “The Broken Man”, fans and critics praised Ramsey’s standout performance, noting their convincing portrayal of a no-nonsense leader at such a young age” — states an opinion in the voice of a fact
• “Co-showrunner D. B. Weiss said Lyanna was “only ever meant to be in one scene, not a prominent supporting character for multiple seasons”” — I feel the quote could be easily paraphrased here too
• “Alternating between productions, Ramsey also played” — reads slightly awkwardly
• “The series received critical acclaim” — needs several supporting sources per MOS:ACCLAIMED
• “Ramsey returned to film as Elsbeth” and “Later that year, Ramsey returned to an HBO-aired series in the second season” — would this really be considered a return, given they were just in a film/HBO series the previous year?
• “”affecting”, noting that “great” — “noted” shouldn’t be used for opinions
• “sharing that they were “linked souls”” — reads a bit journalistic and unencyclopaedic to me
• “Without Pascal’s consistent presence on set,” — maybe should be contextualised for people who haven’t TLOU
• “Ramsey for developing Ellie into a traumatized young adult” — states an opinion as a fact
• “abuse by some viewers” — I don’t think it’s MOS:WEASEL but I feel like the wording of “some viewers” is a bit awkward
• ” with Reddit communities largely dedicated to criticism and memes about their looks” — is there a word missing?
• “It was the first role Ramsey was offered without having to audition and one they found challenging” — feels a bit awkward
• “The Correction Unit (2025), which used locations and emerging actors from Ramsey’s birthplace of Nottingham” — is kinda clunky
• “under their alter ego Bello” — Ramsey or Maltese?
• “Ramsey advocated for a green rider for the filming of season 2 of The Last of Us, having the production adopt environmentally friendly practices, such as using electric vehicles and reducing waste” — I’m not sure whether the bit with “having” is the second item in a list or a participle clause
• Centre refs in “Discography” section
• In “Awards and nominations”, Online Film and Television Association is the only association/organisation that doesn’t have an article; should it be removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE?
• Titles of works in refs should be italicised per MOS:CONFORMTITLE

I’ve left a few replies above too. I haven’t done a deep dive of sources, so there might be more that aren’t FA-level. Sorry if I come across as a bit standoffish with this; that’s really not my intention. I think, prose-wise, this article is mostly really good, but there are few fixes needed here and there. Hope this helps 🙂 Pamzeis (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]