Talk:Roger Ebert/GA1

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. I'll start off by checking for immediate failure, then I'll review by going through the criteria one by one, and I'll finish with a few suggestions that are entirely optional for GA status but may be useful for the progression of the article.

Immediate failure check
No cleanup banners present. No edit warring. No copyvios present. Earwig's detector did give a 54.5% confidence, but I think that was because of quoted material from Ebert and official names such as University of Colorado at Boulder. Going on to the full review.

Review
(1a): perhaps you mean revaluation in the first prose paragraph of "Best Films of the Year" section as reevaluation? Revaluation is changing the price of a good, a movie critic seems a lot more likely to evaluate than measure the monetary value of something. Everything else looks good.

(1b): On the citations in the lead: The ones adjacent to quotes should stay, but I think it would be a good idea to give the others a home in their respective portion of the article.

For the statement about Ebert's reviews being syndicated to over 200 newspapers: That needs a citation and it needs to be somewhere in the body of the article.

Everything else, namely layout, words to watch, and list incorporation meets MoS.

(2a): Reflist present.

(2b): Each phrase in the sentence starting with "Ebert occasionally accused" needs a citation, as well as the next sentence about films passed off as art.

Each clause in the paragraph starting with "Ebert revisited and sometimes revised his opinions" needs a citation. Seeing as the only citation in the paragraph is a listing, the other content is original research until shown otherwise.

The part about founding his own film festival in the "Film and TV Appearances" section needs a citation.

Citation needed for white parasol monologue recitation in the same section as above.
 * ✅, although I'm not happy with the source I ended up using. It seems that Abby Singer is such a small film, marred by an array of release delays, that by the time it came out (5+ years after it was shot), there was no press coverage of it.

Citation needed for the last paragraph of that section.

Citation needed for the third paragraph of "Memorials and Legacy" section stating that Ebert was an avid supporter of Toronto International Film Festival from the beginning.

Reliability of the sources is alright. One is from a blog, and a lot are from his reviews or website, but that attributes to quoted material in the article.

The next couple dozen issues are going to be tedious. They were tedious for me to find them as well, but according to (2a) of the GA criteria, editors can use whatever style they want. That statement links to WP:CITEVAR, which states that only one citation style should be used, and as the article starts off with mainly cite web, cite news, or cite book template formats, that is going to have to be the citation style for this article. Thus, all citations need to use those templates. This is also supported in the essay What the Good article criteria are not, the essay that tries to keep the standards as minimal as possible. The system of ref numbers that I'm using is based on this revision. So here's the list:

The bare link that is currently ref#9, a Google Books link, needs to be in the template to follow the citation style of using those templates.

Ref#12 needs to go into cite news or cite web format to be consistent.

Same for ref#13.

Ref#15 should either be in the cite news format or be a footnote.
 * The sentence was arguably redundant, so I just removed it.

Ref#17 should be in cite book form.

Same for Ref#18

Same for ref#19. You could consider using the template and put the action book citation down in a works cited section.

Ref#21 needs to be in cite web format.

Ref#22 in cite book or sfn template form.

Same for ref#23.

Ref#24 in cite news format.

Ref#25 in cite book.

Ref#26 in cite web.

Ref#29 in cite web format.

Ref#34 should be in cite book format or cite magazine format.

Ref#35 in cite web format.

Same for ref#36.

Ref#42 in cite web format.

Same for ref#43.

Ref#56 in cite web format.

The sentence starting with "Ebert commented on films using his Catholic upbringing" has a citation (currently #11) that is duplicated earlier. Consider using the named form to avoid ref duplication.
 * Can't find any duplicate citation for that.

Ref#59 in cite web format.

Same for ref#61.

Same for ref#68.

Same for ref#69.

Same for ref#70.

Same for ref#77.

Same for ref#78.

Ref#79 in cite book format.

Ref#83 in cite web format.

Ref#86 in cite web format.

Ref#87 in cite web format.

Ref#88 in cite web format.

Ref#90 in cite web format.

Ref#93 in cite web format.

Ref#99 in cite web format.

Ref#105 in cite web format.

Ref#107 in cite web format.

Ref#118 in cite web format.

Ref#119 in cite web format.

Ref#120 in cite web format.

Ref#121 in cite web format.

Ref#122 in cite web format.

Ref#129 in cite web format.

Ref#130 in cite web format.

Ref#136 in cite web format.

Ref#144 in cite web format.
 * ✅. All fixes done. "Tedious," as you described it, turned out to be a colossal understatement, but I think I took care of everything on the list. Thanks for the review, ! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(2c): See points above about where citations are needed to satisfy the no original research criterion.

(3): Main aspects of the topic addressed, lots of detail, stays focused. The article meets this criterion.

(4): Neutrality looks good, so the article meets this criterion.

(5): No edit warring going on, so the article meets this criterion.

(6): Images are relevant, contain good captions, and are suitably licensed, so the article meets this criterion.

Suggestions
In the fourth paragraph of the Death section, Oprah Winfrey is wikilinked for the second time.

Same for Barack Obama in the same paragraph.

I usually give more suggestions, but I think that there are quite enough things to be done without worrying about going beyond GA standards.

Alright, I can't pass this article, so I'll put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the nominator to fix the issues mentioned above. If the issues aren't fixed by 10 January 2017, I will fail the article. Good luck! Icebob99 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Last few
Thanks for covering everything! A few refs slipped through the cracks, so I'll list them, from this revision.

Ref#6 should be in cite web format.

Ref#12 in cite web format.

Ref#44 in cite web format.

Ref#58 in cite web format.

Ref#59 in cite web format.

Other than that, it's all good. Icebob99 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Finished the last set. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the collaboration and your hard work! This article passes the GA criteria to become a good article. Icebob99 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)