Talk:Ronald Fedkiw/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I am going to be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • A little reorganization of this article may be in order. At the moment, his early life is mixed in with his career, and the Personal section reads like a trivia section. I would suggest creation a new section named "Early life and family" or something of the sort, in which the information on him up through his collegiate career, plus the information in the current Personal section, is contained. Then, the rest of the information can continue to stay in the "Career" section. Let me know what you think on this...
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The first paragraph of the Career section needs a ref.
    • The whole Personal section needs a ref.
    • What makes ref #2 (FILMdetail) a reliable source?
    • IMDB (ref #6) is generally not considered a reliable source.
    • In this case it is just being used to document an Oscar. It has a backup ref. The notability of this article rests on the importance of his work to the motion picture industry. I am just throwing in a couple of decent refs to document an Oscar here. I could probably cut out the IMDB or leave it. I am fine with either.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  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):
  7. Overall:

Overall, this is a very nice article, well-written and well-referenced. I have a few questions/comments about the layout and references, so I am putting the article on hold until these can be resolved. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I am passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)