Jump to content

Talk:Asher Levi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAsher Levi has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 27, 2011Good article nomineeListed


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Asher Levi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    This article is not well written at all. The prose is uneven, confusingly written and with rather poor grammar throughout. Please get it copy-edited by someone with a good command of written plain English. Done
    The reception section is rather thin, I would expect to find comments from TV critics there.
    There were no reviews of series 2 of EastEnders: E20 after it was broadcast. –anemoneprojectors– 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? oh well
    The lead fails to summarise the entire article, see WP:LEAD.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    What makes {http://www.lastbroadcast.co.uk/soaps/interviews/v/14893-heshima-thompson-eastenders-e20s-asher-interview.html} and {http://www.kokomagazine.com/?p=1100} reliable sources?
    They are both interviews with the actor, and if the actor isn't a reliable source I don't know what is. A website isn't going to make up an interview with an actor. –anemoneprojectors– 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked what makes those websites reliable sources. How do they measure up to the criteria at WP:RS? A non reliabl;e source producing an interview is still a non-reliable source.
    Another user has brought both sources up at the RS noticeboard, but I still think because it's a direct interview with the actor it's a reliable source, because the actor is a reliable source, regardless of who published their answers. –anemoneprojectors– 23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, on the basis of the limited responses at Wikipedia:RSN#Lastbroadcast I will accept those, but as has been noted there is no available information about editorial policy, etc of these sites. Often reliability is supported by their being used as sources by other reliable publications. One has to assume that they did not mis-represent the interview as presumably the actor might have taken action. This is only an assumption however and one has to be very careful using such sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    A suitable non-free use rationale has been provided
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for above issues to be resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article is in good enough shape now, so I will list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jezhotwells, I've told Anemone that I'm happy to give the article a copy edit and expand the lead, but my editing time over the next few days will be very limited. Would it be possible to extend the hold by a week? I'll have plenty of time to go over it after the 31st. Frickative 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, extended until 3 April. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asher Levi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asher_Levi&oldid=1203571971"