Talk:Miles Fisher/GA1

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

Cirt, I will be reviewing this article. If I find that there are any problems that are preventing a pass, I hope that we can work together to resolve them, and I hope that we will get along during this review.

Quick-Fail Check
The first thing I will do is put this article against the quick-fail criteria:


 * The article completely lacks reliable sources. NA
 * The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way. NA
 * There are correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to, 'cleanup', 'wikify', 'NPOV', 'unreferenced' or large numbers of 'fact', 'clarifyme', or similar tags. There are two banners on the article; one stating that it is written like an advertisement, and the other saying that it lacks citations.  I do not believe these two statements are true, and I will discount the tags as incorrectly applied.  As a result, NA.
 * The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. NA.  I do not believe the recently concluded deletion discussion falls under this criteria.
 * The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint. NA

I have concluded that the article does not warrant a quick-fail. Well done Cirt. I will begin the main review shortly. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
Thank you very much for your positive comments in the above Quick-Fail-Check section. I believe that thanks to we have been able to address comments you made in the above point 3.a., still trying to find some critical commentary on the subject as to your point 4. - but the end result may be that after much searching across multiple news archives and other research databases that there just isn't much out there. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied that the article has now passed criteria 3a. Excellent work Cirt, and Nsk92.  I have been looking for 'negative' commentary of Fisher, but I have found nothing that could be integrated into the article.  As a result, whilst I urge a continuing look for such commentary, I believe that I will probably pass this article on criteria 4 when I re-review the article on September 17.  As I suggested, I will look, and I urge you, to continue looking for negative commentary, nonetheless.  Well done again for the work that has been done in improving the article.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much and I will keep looking through archives for additional sources as you suggest. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I will be away from now until September 20. I did not realise I was going to be absent for this time until only a few hours ago.  As a result, I will not be able to re-review the article on September 17.  However, in its current state, I have determined this article has passed the GA criteria.  I do not have the time to formally pass the article, but I will do so as soon as I get back on September 20.  My apologies for the bad timing of my absense.  If I could resolve the timing problem, I would.  Excellent work to everyone who got this article up to GA standard, especially Cirt and Nsk92.  Well done.  :)  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much and take your time, no worries. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-Review
Since the article has been on hold for at least seven days, I will now conduct another formal review of the article.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Suggestions for improvement
In order to provide suggestions for improvment, I have marked this article up against the FA criteria.

The article does not, imo, meet criteria 1b of the FA criteria, which states "it neglects no major facts or details". The article in its current state does cover all of the major facts that have been discovered through reliable sources, but the narrative in the article does only examine each major fact presented relatively briefly, compared to a typical FA-class article like Jake Gyllenhaal. As a result, my suggestion for improvment of this article is to find out more information about Fisher's life, and his career, using reliable sources, and incorporating that information into the article. I am aware that this is a rather open-ended suggestion, but I am afraid I cannot make it anymore specific.

Conclusion
This article sure has come a long way since it was being discussed for deletion. The people who have brought this article up to the level it is at should be very pleased. I enjoyed reviewing this article, and I hope I can see it being reviewed for A-class, or even FA-class, one day. :) Thanks for reading.  JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your time, I will take your FA suggestions to heart and try to find more information in other WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)