Talk:Ryan Clayton/GA1

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

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jacksonvil (talk · contribs) 08:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey there! I will review this article, my goal being within the next 24 hours. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 08:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn’t able to review this under 24 hours. I might be able to review this over the coming days depending on time. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 11:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries and thank you! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll be the experienced reviewer to oversight the review process as part of the June 2026 Gan Backlog Drive. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Status:  Pass

Preliminary stuff

• Major contributor: Y
• No maintenance tag: Y
  • Citied: Y

Full review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've just read through the whole thing, and it looks good!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All British spelling; lead summarises adequately; layout looks good; everything cited.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The reference style looks good.
	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).	All statements are cited. The sources are mainly news or film websites.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pending spot check below. All good.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	EARWIG 23%, checked manually. All direct quotations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Early life, career, and limited personal life are all covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Overall OK, except for 1 thing. See discussion below. All good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Sounds neutral to me, things that are kinda promotive (tone) are straight from sources/interviews.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars.
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.	Pictured verified on Youtube to be CC.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good photo with good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Final result will be posted below.

Spot checks

 Done. 10% (or 5 sources, whichever is higher) of sources will be checked. Because this is a BLP, I will be checking 8.

• Source 1
  • a Y
  • b Y
• Source 2
  • a Y
  • b Y
  • c Y
  • d Y
  • e Y
  • f Y
• Source 5
  • a Y
  • b Y
  • c Y
• Source 8 Y
• Source 10 Y
• Source 15
  • a Y
  • b Y
• Source 19 Y

Discussion

• Side note: I think this article is the primary topic of this name. You may want to start a RM. (This is unrelated to GA, and is not needed for GA status.) Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 09:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Sections
  • Personal life
    • Is saying which football club he supports really needed? (is this out of scope?) (I'm not too familar with the policies on this.) Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 09:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can remove it if needed, but it is quite common in biographies. If you look at biographical articles in Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama for example, there are various examples of leisure activities that the actors etc like. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Then that’s all good. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention that because this review is done as part of the June backlog drive, I’ll have to wait until an experienced reviewer look over this and confirm. This might take a while so thank you for your patience in the meantime. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 05:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I had read through the article and review and don't have anything to comment on. Review has been done properly, and all criteria have been met. Jacksonvil, you may pass the review when you're ready. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

YListed. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 10:49, 18 June 2026 (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.