Jump to content

Talk:Matt Smith/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! Vicenarian (T · C) 20:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

[edit]

None before review. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA REVIEW (SECOND REVIEW) - Pass

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Excellent article, one of the finest. Featured status around the corner?

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well-written in an elegant, but neutral encyclopedic tone.
    B. MoS compliance:
    MoS compliant.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    A wide variety of reliable, third-party sources. BBC. The Guardian. The Independent. The Daily Mail. The London Evening Standard. IMDB.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well-cited throughout.
    C. No original research:
    None that I see. Article carefully patrolled by those looking for WP:OR and other uncited material.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Broad without being overly detailed. Covers Smith's early life, early career with concise depth, excellent use of quotes from earlier career as illustration. Focused, non-speculatory coverage of his recent Time Lord-related fame.
    B. Focused:
    Narrowly focused on Smith, extraneous material is not apparent, and addition of any promptly removed.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral tone at all times.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable. Incremental improvements always welcome. Will, I hope, be continually updated as more information about his career comes out. Some irrelevant and unsourced material reverted, minor vandalism; nothing to cause a failure.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Nice picture of Smith. It's a LITTLE large. License is in order.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Infobox pic, again, a bit big. :)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    As stated above, excellent article. It seems the concerns of the first GA reviewer have been well-addressed. A lot of hard work has gone into making this article shine above the rest, and it really does show. I might suggest reaching for featured status soon.

Post-GA Questions, Comments and Other Reviews

[edit]