Talk:Adam Carter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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 October 4, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I did some copyediting. Now it is a little bit better.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here at present. The Reception section is a bit short. There is tons of significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources about the character, reception of the writing behind the character, reception behind the acting of the character, probably not just in news, media, magazines, etc, but also books, more info on that award, the awards ceremony ... - the Reception section just needs to be expanded, a lot more. Double, even triple the size and the amount of WP:RS secondary sources used in that subsection.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.

5. Article stability? Inspection of article edit history and talk page edit history seems fine.

6. Images?: Fails at present. File:Adam carter spooks.jpg - image needs more info on source, how it was acquired, where it was acquired from, etc.

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) 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Response

I have expanded on the reception section, but I will continue my hunt for more sources to hopefully get a third paragraph to cover some of the other issues. -- Matthew RD 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, another paragraph, for a total size increase of triple, would do nicely. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA passed

Thanks so much for addressing above GA Reviewer recommendations. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)