Talk:Asher Levi/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This article is not well written at all. The prose is uneven, confusingly written and with rather poor grammar throughout. Please get it copy-edited by someone with a good command of written plain English. ✅
 * The reception section is rather thin, I would expect to find comments from TV critics there.
 * There were no reviews of series 2 of EastEnders: E20 after it was broadcast. – anemone projectors – 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? oh well
 * The lead fails to summarise the entire article, see WP:LEAD.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * What makes {http://www.lastbroadcast.co.uk/soaps/interviews/v/14893-heshima-thompson-eastenders-e20s-asher-interview.html} and {http://www.kokomagazine.com/?p=1100} reliable sources?
 * They are both interviews with the actor, and if the actor isn't a reliable source I don't know what is. A website isn't going to make up an interview with an actor. – anemone projectors – 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked what makes those websites reliable sources. How do they measure up to the criteria at WP:RS? A non reliabl;e source producing an interview is still a non-reliable source.
 * Another user has brought both sources up at the RS noticeboard, but I still think because it's a direct interview with the actor it's a reliable source, because the actor is a reliable source, regardless of who published their answers. – anemone projectors – 23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, on the basis of the limited responses at RSN I will accept those, but as has been noted there is no available information about editorial policy, etc of these sites. Often reliability is supported by their being used as sources by other reliable publications.  One has to assume that they did not mis-represent the interview as presumably the actor might have taken action.  This is only an assumption however and one has to be very careful using such sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * A suitable non-free use rationale has been provided
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is in good enough shape now, so I will list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article is in good enough shape now, so I will list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jezhotwells, I've told Anemone that I'm happy to give the article a copy edit and expand the lead, but my editing time over the next few days will be very limited. Would it be possible to extend the hold by a week? I'll have plenty of time to go over it after the 31st. Frickative  17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, extended until 3 April. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)