Talk:Keymaker/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

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

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
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)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

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

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

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

These are just some examples, I am sorry but most paragraphs are flawed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
It is broad in its scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a (major aspects):
The article seems to focus on the actor more than the character Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (focused):
as per above Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
no edit wars Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Caption is not literate. Suggest "...in his workplace" Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]