Talk:Keymaker/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
No obvious problems with quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- The article is not reasonably well written, it is full of clumsy phrasing. Consider enlisting the help of a copy-editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Examples: Wachowski brothers should be preceded by the- thus the Wachowski brothers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- The keys are already mentioned suggest something like the concept of the keys had been introduced....' Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Seraph informs that the code is hidden Clumsy, bad grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- These are just some examples, I am sorry but most paragraphs are flawed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (MoS):
- The Role experience section is superflous, a small part of it might be relevant in an artcile on the film or the actor, but not on the character. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
- The screenplay references redirect to another web site. The Time article link is broken, the Dictionary of Matrix link is broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- Many of the references are to non reliable sources.
- c (OR):
- I don't think there is evidence of OR
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (major aspects):
- The article seems to focus on the actor more than the character Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (focused):
- as per above Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- no edit wars Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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):
- Image used has a fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Caption is not literate. Suggest "...in his workplace" Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Right this article has a lot of issues, so I am going to fail it now. Please consider the points above, re-work and bring back to GAN when it is improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: