Talk:Peter Chao/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will be waiting... Actually I already have. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay just finished a review for Christopher Nolan, will get to this one soon as well. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond below this entire review, and not interspersed in the individual points, thank you!
Writing quality is okay, but several points of recommendations:
Lede/intro sect - no need for citations here, per WP:LEAD, the material should be cited lower in the main article body text, and not in the lede intro unless specifically controversial.
Lede/intro sect - bit small, please expand, per WP:LEAD, lede/intro sect should adequately function as a standalone summary of the entire article contents.
Infobox - can more fields and info be added to the infobox?
Writing quality - please post to WP:GOCE requests page for previously uninvolved copyeditor, and to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects asking for help with copyediting. Even if they don't come before GA Review is over, still a good idea to go and make those requests.
Background - background of what? More specific title of this sect would be helpful.
Portals - please convert to {{Portal bar}} as footer at bottom of article and add some additional relevant portals, location of individual, etc.
See also - missing, consider adding some See also links to a sect called See also
Early life and education - a bit sparse, any more research for more info on this aspect please?

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. No issues here.

3. Broad in coverage?: See comments above about things to add.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.

5. Article stability? No issues here. After inspection of article edit history going back over one month, and upon inspection of talk page.

6. Images?: No issues here. No images used.

NOTE: Please respond below this entire review, and not interspersed in the individual points, thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! See also links would be redundant when the links are present as wiki links in the body itself, right? I have added a portal bar, more fields to the Infobox, stripped off the lede's citations, and beefed it up with words. I am just about to go to the copy editors' door. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates! Starting to look a bit better already. Please keep me posted here, below. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Background is good enough, methinks. Anything more wordy reads like an old grandma's story. I have used just about everything to be found about his early life online. GA does not need to be overwhelmingly comprehensive too. Added "See also" -- Two links. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

Good job addressing suggestions, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aligato gozaimasu. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]