Talk:Steven Moffat/GA1

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Article promoted after period on hold

Hello! I'm your friendly neighbourhood weebiloobil, and will be reviewing this article. Feel free to contact me with any questions! - weebiloobil (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
A little concise, but at least it's readable. "Producer Sandra C. Hastie" doesn't need to be repeated in the same section. Done

B. MoS compliance:
Interesting style of headings, but there is no contravention of WP:LEAD. I would have thought that a bit about his first marriage would be appropiate. Also, when did any of the stuff in the first paragraph take place? There are no dates
I've restructured the lead a little to justify including his first marriage. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
I'm not sure about references 31, 33, 34 & 39; are these the only refs available?
I've removed a couple. I'm struggling to find alternatives for the Nebula Awards...The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
As far as I can see
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It focuses a bit too much on his work, rather than his life
There aren't really any other reliable sources to support his personal life. Actually, we're quite lucky that some of his work is quasi-auto-biographical. The JPS^{talkto me} 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Ooh, very focused
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
One teensy bit I removed
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I've requested authentication of authorisation of the first picture. Watch this space
I've received such authentication - weebiloobil (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm placing the article on hold, pending improvements. Could you have a look at the reference situation, please, and do a couple of minor tweaks. Thanks - weebiloobil (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References issue

(For ref so numbers don't get lost:
31 Hugo and Campbell Awards Winners". Locus Online ,
30:~~Chatbeeb~~
33 Brownfield, Robin . "'Doctor Who,' 'Batman Begins,' 'Battlestar Galactica' Nominated For Nebulas". SyFy Portal.
34 ~~Rowe, Josiah . ""Blink" gets Nebula nod". Outpost Gallifrey.~~
39 ~~Digital Spy~~)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Episode_article_overview, the news section on Outpost Gallifrey is acceptable? The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it is. Whoops. I shall remove it from the above list forthwith - weebiloobil (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I interpret correctly that Locus or its online incarnation aren't considered reliable sources? It's been published for the better part of 40 years and has marketed itself as "the newspaper of the science fiction field" for most of that time - I was a subscriber for about 20 years from 1983 until unemployment meant I had to save money, but I think you would need an extremely good reason to discount it as it does have a very strong reputation for being comprehensive, especially for things like Hugo and Nebula winners. -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 01:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at the Doctor Who project to ask for help with the two remaining refs. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Locus ref is the only disputed ref left now, I think. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locus is a long-standing sci-fi fandom magazine, and should be considered a reliable source for any claims relating to sci-fi and genre fandom. It's probably one of the best possible source in that area, in fact. We could switch to the organization actually giving the awards, but frankly, Locus is good enough that this would not actually add any reliability to speak of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional reference to Outpost Gallifrey to support the same information as Locus. Unless I'm missing something, all of the reviewer's points should now have been addressed? The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! I'm passing the article - weebiloobil (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is required at WP:GAN, here are weebiloobil's points for further improvement (completely free of charge, of course):

Expand the article more towards his personal life, particularly the bits not related to his career

Don't focus on awards so much: they are important, but don't need repeating in the lead and every subsequent section

Maintain the development of the article carefully, especially in relation to Doctor Who. I don't want to see this article at WP:GAR

That's all, folks! - weebiloobil (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.