Talk:Christopher Nolan/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick fail of GA Review
Unfortunately, this article fails multiple criteria for potential consideration of GA status as listed at WP:WIAGA: &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Well-written - Fails here. The prose is in need of copyedit, I'd suggest in the interim before another GA Review, posting a request for copyedit from the folks at WP:GOCE and also to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to hopefully solicit copyedits from experienced editors previously uninvolved with this article.
 * 2) Verifiable with no original research - Fails here. Unfortunately the article is not stable and includes recent edits by IPs adding in sourced information to unreliable sources, or at the very least questionable sources, or at the very least there could be sources of a higher caliber than Contactmusic.com.
 * 3) Broad in its coverage - Passes here. However that coverage needs to be copyedited and looked over in depth for better sourcing standards, as noted above.
 * 4) Neutral - Fails here. The table Recurring collaborators is not needed and borders on unencyclopedic. It appears this table has itself been the source of recent edit-wars. There are unsourced paragraphs and sentences in several of the latter subsections that at the very least need to be sourced properly, and at best need to be copyedited by previously uninvolved editors with a view towards NPOV.
 * 5) Stable - Fails here. The article has been the subject of recent edit wars. These edit wars appear to have taken place involving multiple IP address edits, without talk page discussion to work out these issues or any attempts at WP:Dispute resolution on the talk page.
 * 6) Images - Fails here. File:Kennedy salute.gif image is used in this article with zero fair use rationale on its image page arguing for such usage as fair use.

Thanks for the review!
Will do my best fixing the problems in the coming weeks.

Thanks for reviewing it anyway, Sammy J, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds great, good luck to you in your quality improvement efforts! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)