Talk:Keymaker/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No obvious problems with quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The article is not reasonably well written, it is full of clumsy phrasing. Consider enlisting the help of a copy-editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Examples: Wachowski brothers should be preceded by the- thus the Wachowski brothers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   The keys are already mentioned suggest something like the concept of the keys had been introduced....' Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   Seraph informs that the code is hidden Clumsy, bad grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   These are just some examples, I am sorry but most paragraphs are flawed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The Role experience section is superflous, a small part of it might be relevant in an artcile on the film or the actor, but not on the character. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The screenplay references redirect to another web site. The Time article link is broken, the Dictionary of Matrix link is broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Many of the references are to non reliable sources.

   c (OR):

   • I don't think there is evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   a (major aspects):

   • The article seems to focus on the actor more than the character Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • as per above Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • no edit wars Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Image used has a fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Caption is not literate. Suggest "...in his workplace" Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Right this article has a lot of issues, so I am going to fail it now. Please consider the points above, re-work and bring back to GAN when it is improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)