Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Leslie Nielsen/1

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early life -

I moved ref 3. It does not provide confirmation that "His father was Danish, and his mother was Welsh." Those facts are unverified.
Thanks for catching that. It looks like when the article was initially made a GA, there was no citation to support any of it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 does, however, provide verification that he was born in Saskatchewan; but his parents are not named or listed in that citation.
I've included two new sources that cover both the names and the ethnicity. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the other citations in this section required payment of a fee and/or registration to view the full articles.
There's no reason they can't be used, although it can be difficult to verify information. If you want me to look any up and verify certain facts (and/or e-mail you copies), let me know. Unfortunatley there still is no published biography on the actor (except for his comical autobiography, which I wouldn't really rely on). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nehrams2020, thanks very much for your replies above. You've done far more of these than I have. It looks GA material, so I'm doing a much slower review than I would on a WP:GAN. I will try and finish this one before Christmas and will make a decision later on whether to take up your offer of copies of citations. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take your time. I want you to point out anything that doesn't look right or doesn't meet your expectations. Unfortunately, some of my GAs were only passed with a few comments, so I always appreciate any ideas for improving the articles I work on. Plus, sometimes this one falls through the cracks in my watchlist so it may have additions/removals that I didn't notice by random editors. Thanks again for taking the time to review, this is one more article towards completing Sweeps. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm please to report that this article is compliant with WP:WIAGA, I'm therefore closing the review and updating the article history accordingly. Pyrotec (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]