Talk:James Nesbitt/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Definitely the strongest part of the article excellently written and flows well.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
At the very least the claims regarding "wokring on the arched eyebrows" are not supported by either citationalthough sources are reliable although the most "controversial" statement regarding cocaine is well sourced
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Nothing obvious stands out as NPOV
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Both non free images properly tagged
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Currently requires fixing of sources or removal of claims in lead, otherwise will passPassed! BigHairRef | Talk 00:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
Response The "arched eyebrow" bit is supported by both citations:
- Rees: "Many of Nesbitt's career choices have been devoted to the cause of proving that there is more to him than an arched eyebrow and a knowing twinkle"
- Dowle: "Nesbitt laughs when I suggest that it is all in the wicked way he uses his eyebrows. "I did a lot of work on my eyebrow at grammar school to impress the girls and I knew it would come in useful one day," he says.
Bradley0110 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:I've put the above Dowle quote as a ref after the eyebrow sentence. There is no link to the article on the Times website (unless it's in their subscription archive). I found the article on Lexis Nexis. If there are any other ambiguous refs please say so. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the sentence altogether; it isn't mentioned or elaborated on in the main article, so just looks shoehorned into the lead. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)