Talk:Keymaker/GA1

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Quick fail criteria assessment No obvious problems with quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The article is not reasonably well written, it is full of clumsy phrasing. Consider enlisting the help of a copy-editor at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Examples: Wachowski brothers should be preceded by the- thus the Wachowski brothers. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The keys are already mentioned suggest something like the concept of the keys had been introduced....' Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seraph informs that the code is hidden Clumsy, bad grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These are just some examples, I am sorry but most paragraphs are flawed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The Role experience section is superflous, a small part of it might be relevant in an artcile on the film or the actor, but not on the character. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The screenplay references redirect to another web site. The Time article link is broken, the Dictionary of Matrix link is broken. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Many of the references are to non reliable sources.
 * c (OR):
 * I don't think there is evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its scope. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * a (major aspects):
 * The article seems to focus on the actor more than the character Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * as per above Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * no edit wars Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Image used has a fair use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Caption is not literate. Suggest "...in his workplace" Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Right this article has a lot of issues, so I am going to fail it now. Please consider the points above, re-work and bring back to GAN when it is improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Right this article has a lot of issues, so I am going to fail it now. Please consider the points above, re-work and bring back to GAN when it is improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)