Talk:Jesse Eisenberg/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. I give my props to the uploaders/contributors of the images in this article; they complement the text rather nicely.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.

1999–2008: Early work: Some of the citations are missing inline author and/or date parametres.

2009–11: Breakthrough and critical success: The words sleeper hit should link to the article "Sleeper hit".

Done by Igordebraga. Mkdw ^talk 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming projects: The citations following the sentence This was restated in an interview with ShortList magazine the following month. are missing inline website parametres.

Done by Igordebraga. Mkdw ^talk 02:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes are made accordingly, I'd say this article'll be good to go. –Matthew - (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To GA status it shall go! –Matthew - (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]