Talk:Matt Selman/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Theo10011 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article as one of the oldest GA nominees.
FAIL - I believe that the article fails the criteria for a GA Category on multiple grounds, it needs a general re-write of the entire article for cohesiveness, the length of the article is also an issue, it is too small at the moment. The article carries numerous quotes and references all of which are appropriately formatted but loses in terms of prose quality and the Biographical Information that are important to BLP articles. I would recommend a re-write and addition of some new information as the first possible solution. Theo10011 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would also like to add an addition to the article's credits section, a table for his Filmography with additional information like year and his contribution to it as a possible recommendation. The lead section needs further tightening, its quotes superfluous amount of his filmography and Biographical information which should be retained for the middle section.Theo10011 (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. The article being "too small at the moment" is not a legitimate reason to fail it. The article has to be comprehensive, which it is, it does not have to be long. There really is not anymore information out there. Also a filmography table is fairly superflous, all of the information is there and unlike for an actor where it is easy to do, the same cannot be said for this. So the issue you have raised which I see as a problem is the prose. I would try and improve it, but, because you failed the article rather than put it on hold, why should I bother? Thanks anyway. Gran2 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Gran, I just found that the article didn't live up to the level of similar articles in the category. I understand that you contributed heavily to it, but after checking the History of the article, I found it didn't receive many distinct edits recently, I assumed it might take longer to rectify those issues if I placed it 'on hold', I came across the page as the oldest nominated pages needing a review and did not want to prolong that process. I will try and correct the article myself when I find the time, in case you do not wish to, I would urge you not to give up on it and re-consider your decision. I hope you understand my intention, and please don't take the criticism personally. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. The article being "too small at the moment" is not a legitimate reason to fail it. The article has to be comprehensive, which it is, it does not have to be long. There really is not anymore information out there. Also a filmography table is fairly superflous, all of the information is there and unlike for an actor where it is easy to do, the same cannot be said for this. So the issue you have raised which I see as a problem is the prose. I would try and improve it, but, because you failed the article rather than put it on hold, why should I bother? Thanks anyway. Gran2 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)