The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This article was nominated for GA in good faith by a user who is not the primary contributor and who has made several minor edits. Per the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions, "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly and are familiar with the subject." If this was the only time the nominator had done this, I would probably not mind, however the nominator has a history of nominating articles where they are not the primary or significant contributor. For me to work collaboratively as a reviewer, I need to be secure in the knowledge that the nominator knows the ins and outs of the content under review, as well as its sources, and is confident in either their expertise on the subject or appears knowledgeable about the topic. I myself have, in the past, nominated one or two articles where I was not the primary contributor, however, I considered myself quite knowledgeable in the subject area. Because I am not comfortable as a reviewer in this situation (and because I didn't think I had to actually look at the editor's history to review an article), I am closing this review and I ask that the nominator renominate it so as to attract a different reviewer. It is true that articles can be nominated by anyone, however, it is also true that it is highly preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the subject. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) 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);[2] and
The list of awards is incredibly distracting (WP:SEAOFBLUE) and makes reading comprehension difficult. Minimize links within prose whenever possible. If you aren't sure how to fix this, look at an award-winning FA film article. Going from memory, the best way to do this is to summarize the awards (MOS:INTRO) and link to maybe one or two, possibly three. Currently, you've got fifteen links in the third paragraph lead summary of the awards, and that's excessive because extensive studies have shown that multiple links disrupt the reader. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
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.
Undetermined
Don't know
Pass
Done --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)