Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article should be delisted because of its clear lack of reliable sources. It previously depended far too much on blog posts. Given the number of books and critical studies that have been written on Bond, it's surprising that none are cited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As the previous reviewer has not concluded the review, I will finish it. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 28, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The article is lacking many citations.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Reference #5 is a bog/fan site, thus not an WP:RS; likewise #6; #7; and #8

Since the addition of references to the Background section, the above refers to #9 through #12. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1. c (OR):

   • no OR

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • OK

   b (focused):

   • OK

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • OK

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • OK

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • One image tagged correctly

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Appropriately used and captioned.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold whilst the above concerns are met. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   Well, the Background section has been addressed, but nothing else, so delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)