Talk:Tom Hanks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wikicology (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will start the review today. I'm likely to be slow with this review. If you think I'm too slow, 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 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£} 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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

Query

Hi Ankit2299! can you reference the claims on the third paragraph under the "introduction" section, the first paragraph under the "Early life and education" section, the first paragraph under the "Career" section, and the second paragraph under the same section? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

The article failed the GA criteria. None of the issues raised was addressed by the nominator. It seems they are not ready for the review but they can leave a message on my talk page when they are ready. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I think a good article under a subject like this should have a filmography table. The table should follow the format; Year - Title - Role - Note - Source. Where "Year" is the year of the film's release date. Please see MOS:YEAR. "Title" is the title of the work. "Role" is the role played by Tom as it is written and presented in the credits of the work. Both "Note" and "Source" sections are optional. The "Note" section may include additional information such as medium, episode titles, or awards while the "source" section should be used when the role or the work itself may be obscure or difficult to verify. See Kate Beckinsale. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, are you going to continue with this review? It appears abandoned after no activity in over a month. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don't think I will like to continue. I will close it any moment from now. If you are willing to help, please do. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]