Talk:Sebastian Shaw (actor)/GA1

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

Took a run at a FA but it looks like it isn't ready, so I'm hoping this will improve the article enough that it might get there eventually. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PLEASE NOTE, I am getting married and will not be back from the honeymoon until Oct 8 at the earliest. I can address any objections upon my return, so please don't drop the nomination until then. Thanks! -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Could use some copyediting in places and a read-through from one or two editors previously uninvolved in contribution to the article. A bit too many subsections, structure could use some work. WP:LEAD should be expanded a bit. There appears to be one comment at the bottom of the previous FAC that could still be addressed.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Does cover many aspects of the individual's career.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone.
 * 5. Article stability? Some minor edits from new users/IPs to monitor, but looks pretty stable in edit history, and no major conflicts upon inspection of talk page.
 * 6. Images?: A fair-use image is used in the infobox to represent the actor - but it is a screenshot Image:Sebastian shaw 1979.JPG - the image page also has no license tag info. That should be removed, and replaced instead with this one Image:Shaw in It Happened Here.jpg, as that is free-use. Appropriate fair-use rationales on the other two.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I think you should swap out the infobox image so that it is a free-use image. It would be best to enlist a third-party individual to do some copyediting, that has been previously uninvolved in the article itself. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cirt. I'll address these this weekend. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I expanded the lead and I condensed many of the subsections (which I think covers the FAC comment). I have a question about the image. The infobox image was not added by me, but wouldn't it fall under the same fair-use rationale as the other two images? IF so, wouldn't establishing that rationale on the page (which I did) resolve the issue? If not, please let me know and I'll remove it and replace it with the free-use one. I plan to give the article another copyedit, although if you wanted one from someone who had not previously contributed to the article, perhaps you or someone else would be better equipped to do so. And any further work you feel is needed, please feel free to tell me. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you say swap, I assume you mean switch the two, so I did. If you're saying remove the 1979 one altogether let me know and I will; or you can do it yourself. As far as the copy edit, were you going to do that yourself, or should I put in for another copy edit? (I've had one done in the past.) Just let me know. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No I think you should find someone else to do some copyediting. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put in for a copy edit request. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
Nice work, good improvements and thanks for responding to my above points. Apologies on the prior edit, I was looking at a version of the article that by someone that had reverted the work that had recently been done on the article to improve its quality. Cirt (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)