Talk:Colin Farrell/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2013 (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 August 9, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * 1) NOTE: Please do not intersperse comments in between this review, rather, please respond below the entire GA Review, thanks!
 * 2) Writing quality suffers. Please post a request to WP:GOCE and also please post to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects asking for help with copyediting from previously uninvolved contributors. We'll have to see some sort of major copyedit before the article's quality is ready.
 * 3) Lots of one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Can these please be expanded upon, or merged into other paragraphs?
 * 4) Early life - this sect seems a bit sparse, surely there are other secondary sources from whence to expand this sect a bit more?
 * 5) Early career - this sect also seems a bit small, can it be expanded upon more with additional WP:RS sources?
 * 6) A bit too much usage of quotations overall, please consider trimming these down, and paraphrasing some of them as well.
 * 7) Personal life - a bit too much WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to this sect, especially some lurid details, and even in some cases citations needed tags for some of this info, that is really a big fail problem.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * 1) Major problems here throughout the entire article.
 * 2) All sentences and all facts need to have inline citations to WP:RS secondary sources satisfying WP:V and using WP:CIT formatting, more info at WP:CITE.
 * 3) There are multiple places with missing cites, where cite needed tags could be added. This is a big fail if not addressed.
 * 4) Filmography sect - Notes column - entire Notes column in this sect is unsourced. Each fact must have an inline cite, per above.
 * 5) Television - same thing as Filmography, entire Notes sect of the column is unsourced, needs inline cites.
 * 6) Selected awards - Again, entire sect is unsourced. Needs inline cites, per above.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: See problems with small sects, small paragraphs, above.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Please trim bottom 3 links from External links sect, they seem inappropriate or haphazardly thrown in there.
 * 5. Article stability?


 * 1) Article edit history is stable, for now, but there have been multiple periods of instability. Something to watch out for.
 * 2) Multiple unaddressed sects on talk page. Please look at the most recent five (5) unaddressed sects on talk page, and either respond to them, or summarize them here as to any outstanding issues.
 * 6. Images?: Three (3) images used, all check out alright on image pages at Wikimedia Commons.

NOTE: Please do not intersperse comments in between this review, rather, please respond below the entire GA Review, thanks! 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Worked on the above
--Aichik (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Fixed the one-sentence-long- and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Filled in Early Life and Early Career, the latter with new sources, cut down on quotations, paraphrasing some.
 * 2) Trimmed Personal life, took out Maud Newton quote, cut down Stalker and Sex Tape sections. Not sure what you mean by lurid as Farrell's been pretty open about these things, other actors have gone through similar problems and it adds layers to his life: He wasn't manufactured by the Disney system.
 * 3) Does it still need a "major copyedit"? I am a member of GOCE and found a few things but overall I think it's okay. I don't mind putting it up on the GOCE board but I wonder where you think the remaining problems are.
 * 4) Found some places that were missing cites, what else sticks out to you?
 * 5) Sourced Notes columns in Filmography and Television sections. Selected awards section just repeats these, sources can be seen in Filmography and Television.
 * 6) Deleted bottom 3 links from External links section
 * 7) Will look at the most recent five unaddressed sects on talk page, but one, posed by me, I've already answered.

Update: Have addressed those last five unaddressed sections on Talk page.--Aichik (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, will take another look soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see a 2nd opinion was requested. I welcome that actually, because I think this particular article could only benefit from additional GA Reviewers. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look through and didn't see any red flags. Since there was already one review that is fine with it being a GA, I don't see the need to do another, so as a result I'm going to pass this. Wizardman 22:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll respectfully defer to the judgment of, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)