Talk:Carson Beckett/GA1

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

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review
Two images used, one free-use, one fair-use: Both check out okay. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Carson Beckett (Stargate).jpg
 * File:Paul mcgillion.jpg

Stability review
Seems okay here too. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No issues apparent on a check of the article's edit history going back a few months.
 * No recent talk page discussion or conflicts to speak of on the article's talk page.

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 April 10, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * Writing is pretty good but could use an overall copyedit from an uninvolved editor - try posting to the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects and to WP:GOCE.
 * Also, the lede could be expanded a trifle and perhaps broken into three paragraphs.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * Duly cited throughout - a tad concerned about over dependency on primary as opposed to secondary sources though, but not too big an issue in this particular case.
 * I noticed 2 redlinks in the References - are these individuals notable? And if so, could stubs be created on them?
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects, but I think that the Reception section is lacking. Surely there is a lot more info out there in sources, both reception of the actor's portrayal of the character, and the reception by critics of the writing arc and character development in reviews of episodes. There is probably enough info out there to double or even triple the size of this subsection.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone.
 * 5. Article stability? See above.
 * 6. Images?: See above.

Please do not intersperse comments/responses with this review, but respond below instead. Thank you. 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) 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for the review, though I was aware of it and watchlisted this, and was concerned that it may never be completed, and I was about to send you a message by the end of the day, but glad its finished. About the notes;
 * Concerning the copyedit, I though that Sgeureka has already done it, twice, but I may ask him if he's willing to go third time round.
 * As for the two redlinks, I seriously doubt they are notable, since according to the "What links here feature", the latter has only been mentioned on the Beckett, ATL eps, and ATL II articles, so I'll unlink them.
 * Thirdly, I agree that the reception section is short, but then George Hammond (Stargate) has a short one as well, but he was classed GA. Regardless, I'll do some poking around the net, and if I feel like it, listen to the audio commentaries of the Beckett featured episodes if there is some reception info. I also notice that there are TV Zone sources on other SG characters, but regretably, I don't own any, so I'll have to ask around in that field too.
 * I'll do more changes, but unlike other GANs, I won't do those right away, but I'll try an complete them within the seven day limit. Thanks again for the review. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay keep me posted here at this page. Please do keep in mind there are other places to find reliable sources for the Reception section other than just DVD commentaries and sources available on the Internet. (Books, academic journals, news archives, etc.) Cirt (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not GA at this time
Unfortunately, concerns were not addressed during the period allotted for GA Hold. Take some time to reevaluate the article, I'd suggest taking it through a Peer Review as well, expand the Reception subsection, and then at some point in the future consider another try for GA. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)