Talk:Yann Martel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, Duckduckstop, I'll be reviewing this article. It looks (at face value) very close to GA status however I will have to have a look in more detail over the next week or two. It looks like a lot of effort has gone into preparing this high-quality article. 140barb01 may want to contribute as they seem to be doing most of the editing, and as a not it doesn't seem like you have actually edited this article at all - which is not ideal, but if you're happy to respond to my comments during the review not a big problem. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thanks for pinging, and i will respond. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing against the GA criteria below:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yet to verify and check for plagiarism
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yet to verify
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yet to verify
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yet to verify
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yet to verify
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays on topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	See comments
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yet to verify
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

At the present moment, I think we should hold the review for 1-2 weeks while the article stabilises, after which I'll continue the review. I'd love also to hear from the main editor at large, 140barb01. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am failing this review based on the neutral and stability criteria. Article is still being extensively edited by an editor who I assume to be Yann Martell, his wife Alice Kuipers, or family or a close friend, based on their extensive edits to those two articles alone. I also can't find any record of edits by the nominator in the last year, which is unusual for a GA review. I suggest renomination in 1-3 months after editing has slowed down and other editors have had a look. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]