Talk:Samuel J. Briskin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wikicology (talk · contribs) 09:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this GA nomination, Onel5969. I will go through the article in details later today. I might be a bit slow with this review. If you think I'm too slow and that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I'm an extremely slow reviewer but my aim is always to pass rather than fail; I would rather push to improve an article rather than simply fail the review. I will normally help with minor improvement rather than listing them here. Anything more significant than minor improvements, I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the GA criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is recently created and is stable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• There is an appropriate reference section. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• The article is focused and pertinent.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Most aspects of the relevant MoS criteria are met. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Major aspects. Article appears to cover the main points - I'm not seeing anything substantial missing. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Images used are relevant, and appropriately captioned. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Images have appropriate copyright information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Query

Fail

Pass

This is an informative and helpful article on an important film producer. Passed as meeting Good Article criteria. Congratulations!