Talk:Matt Smith/GA1

GA Review

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

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lede could be broken up into two paragraphs, and expanded upon a tad bit more.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, though it'd be better to have the in-line citations at the ends of sentences, as opposed to the ends of paragraphs. Citation (1) could use a bit more info so it can be verified other than "ancestry.com", and Citation (18) appears to lack proper formatting.

I've fixed ref(18). I don't how to improve (1) as it appears you need to login to ancestry.com, I don't doubt the information. Regarding the first comment, it would appear that in places a paragraph sumerizes a source which is referenced at its end. Not sure how to make this clearer, except perhaps referencing it twice once at the beginning and again at the end? Edgepedia (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be easier to clear that up by having a citation at the end of each sentence. This can be done using <ref name="nameofthecite"></ref>, etc. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: Missing - Lacking information on the reception of his roles/performances in press/media/critics secondary sources.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a clear and neutral tone, passes here.

5. Article stability? Appears to be some minor edit-warring in the edit history [1], but no conflicts evident on the talk page. Has this all been resolved amicably?

6. Images?: No images. Not a fail criteria, but it sure would be nice to have a free-use image or two to use in the article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT #3, Smith is a relatively unknown actor. Even after he was cast as the Doctor. I searched Google News' archives for the past two years, and didn't get much; apart from the That Face award and a load of false positives. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Nothing from television/drama critics mentioning any commentary about any of his past performances? Cirt (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find anything beyond the normal rave review, I'll be surprised. I'm also concerned about how much reception of the acting would be relevant, and how it would be inserted. Sure, Emmys and BAFTAs are clear indications, but when it gets down to episode-by-episode performance, it gets a bit... well, pointless. Martin Keamy is an article (about a fictional character) where it's done well, where by-season reviews are used, but all the same... Lost is a primetime show on ABC, Party Animals was on BBC2. I'm not sure that reviews of him in the Sally Lockhart specials would be much help either. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. At least have some reviews/reception of his acting work from critics. Perhaps two tasteful quotes per production/show, etc. Otherwise, seems woefully lacking in this regard. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's very hard, if not impossible, to find such reviews which are really useful. Smith remains an obscure actor still, and I wasn't able to find anything useful to that regard, on Google News, that is. :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think there are reviews of his various performances out there in secondary sources. Without that, I think the article is lacking. Cirt (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to search, be my guest; as I said, I wasn't able to find anything useful. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do and post back here later. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing critical reception, reviews of his acting work, etc.

I did some brief searches, took a few seconds. I was able to find plenty of sources to cite from with commentary and reception about Matt Smith's acting work. I searched for "matt smith" and "that face", and also "matt smith" and "party animals", limiting searches to before 2008 to screen out results that also discussed the Doctor Who casting. There is lots of stuff. Again I assert that this article is woefully deficient without this material. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible archives to search for material include NewsBank, Infotrac, Lexis Nexis, a library, etc. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party Animals, no; That Face, yes. However, I can't use NewsBank or LexisNexis, and I doubt I'll be able to use Infotrac either. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these databases should be available at your local library. I will give it a bit more time, but then I am afraid I will fail this article as it does not meet GA quality at this time because it is lacking in these respects, as I mentioned, above. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: See above for comments on how this should be improved.

3. Broad in coverage?: See above for comments on how this should be improved.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: See above for comments on how this could be improved (not required).

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]