Talk:David Mirkin/GA1

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

Reviewer: Keithbob (talk · contribs) 01:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Beginning the review process.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 01:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; it's been waiting for almost three months so I can't really remember much of it, and no longer have any time to do anything about. Anyway, I agree that it needs some copy-editing and trimming, but disagree with your assessment on the irelevancy of material or that it reads like a "fan" article. And the image in the Get a Life is of Chris Elliott, the show's star and co-creator, so, it is 1) relevant and 2) not relevant to the infobox. Again, thanks, but I don't really have any time to work on the article anymore. Gran2 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I have asked for two other GA editors to look at the article and my comments and give their feedback. My mistake on the photo. I have corrected my comments above to reflect this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay, have been busy in real life. After a brief look over the article, I also agree that the prose should be tidied up in some areas, and the lead does need some work. It doesn't need to be perfect, but some improvement from a copyedit or two from other editors should do the job for reaching GA. If the prose is readable and there's no glaring issues, it will be sufficient for meeting the GA criteria. Consider asking members from the relevant WikiProject to take a look. For the issue regarding considering this article to be written as a "fan article", a review will be needed to ensure that each statement is from a NPOV, and if it goes positive/negative against Mirkin, that there is a source to back it up. Writing the article from an encyclopedic point of view definitely has to find the balance between preventing the article from appearing as a puff piece or, on the other hand, a scathing review. I'd also agree with Keithbob that some copyediting will likely help eliminate any such statements, but the editor(s) who have spent the most time with the article can probably more readily identify this. For any content that is considered irrelevant, each instance should be discussed between the reviewer and editor, to determine if it should be included in the article. Specific examples will allow for overall improvement rather than listing a general section. Overall, I believe this review was performed to ensure the article meet the GA criteria, and with some further copyediting and edits to address the above raised points, this article could reach GA status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nehrams for your post. I will place the GA review on hold for 7 days. If the required improvements are not made within that time, then I will have no choice but to give the article a FAIL and ask that it be resubmitted for review at a future date. Cheers! -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Over the past 5 days, no one has commented on this review or made any changes to the article. The editor who nominated the article has indicated that they are too busy to work on it right now. For these reasons, the article is now being rated has having failed the review. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)