Talk:John Carpenter (game show contestant)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

No images used in the article.
Therefore, no issues here.

Next, on to Stability assessment. — Cirt (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stability assessment

Upon inspection of article talk page, no ongoing problems.
I looked at article edit history, shows vandalism issues, perhaps might try to request semi-protection at WP:RFPP.

— Cirt (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review on Hold

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

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.	Great job here, prose is good, nice and concise, and Copyvio Detector shows no problems. Excellent work here.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per WP:LEAD, Please expand lede intro sect to fully standalone as a summary of the entire article body text contents. I'd suggest two or three paragraphs, of 4 sentences per paragraph.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(1) Carpenter played for the SARA Foundation and won $250,000. $125,000 went to him, making his total Millionaire winnings $1,125,000. -- unsourced statement. (2) He faced Tic-Tac-Dough champion Thom McKee in the first round match and won his match but lost in the quarterfinals to The Weakest Link champion Michelle Kitt. -- unsourced statement.
	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).	Article is so short, so please archive all external links using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archivedate fields with WP:CIT templates. Please read WP:CITE and WP:CIT, and please make sure to standardize all citations with WP:CIT templates and fields, so as to increase uniformity throughout article's citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article appears to rely primarily on secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Any info on how he prepared for the winning gameshow game?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A bit too much on the Later work sect. Lots of small paragraphs. Feels kind of like trivia. Perhaps try merging some paragraphs in that sect together, and maybe simultaneously expanding sect Personal life (which I recommend changed to title Education and career.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Recommend change name of sect Personal life to Education and career. On 2nd thought, maybe Career and family. But either way, that sect could be expanded a bit. Also, how did the win impact this portion of his life?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per my Stability assessment, above, no issues here.
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.	No images used in article, no issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images used in article, no issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for 7 days. — Cirt (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks again! I've tried my hand at expanding the lead, will get to the main part of the article later today and tomorrow, time permitting. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, keep me posted here, — Cirt (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, think everything is done except archiving the links. Let me know if you would like to see anything else; I'll ping you when the links are done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit better, let me know when you're all done. — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Okay, all the links have been archived. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Great work by Bentvfan54321.

Article looks much better.

Passed as GA.

My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above.

— Cirt (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]