Talk:James Nesbitt/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:James Nesbitt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Definitely the strongest part of the article excellently written and flows well.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * At the very least the claims regarding "wokring on the arched eyebrows" are not supported by either citation although sources are reliable although the most "controversial" statement regarding cocaine is well sourced
 * 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:
 * Nothing obvious stands out as NPOV
 * 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):
 * Both non free images properly tagged
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Currently requires fixing of sources or removal of claims in lead, otherwise will pass Passed! BigHairRef | Talk 00:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Currently requires fixing of sources or removal of claims in lead, otherwise will pass Passed! BigHairRef | Talk 00:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Response The "arched eyebrow" bit is supported by both citations:
 * Rees: "Many of Nesbitt's career choices have been devoted to the cause of proving that there is more to him than an arched eyebrow and a knowing twinkle"

Bradley0110 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dowle: "Nesbitt laughs when I suggest that it is all in the wicked way he uses his eyebrows. "I did a lot of work on my eyebrow at grammar school to impress the girls and I knew it would come in useful one day," he says.

There is no link to the article on the Times website (unless it's in their subscription archive). I found the article on Lexis Nexis. If there are any other ambiguous refs please say so. :) Bradley0110 (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence altogether; it isn't mentioned or elaborated on in the main article, so just looks shoehorned into the lead. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)