Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1

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

This article is not at GA standard.


 * The referencing is not good enough. It's not sufficient to link to the Sony pictures site that it is in any case now a dead link, rather than to the critical sources mentioned in the text.
 * The prose is not good enough. To take a line at random: "The novel has been a speculative subject since its publication in 1965."  What?
 * Meanwhile, the original GA review was clearly cursory at best.

Hence I suggest delisting it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as the previous editor has not concluded the reassessment, I will continue. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of June 21, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Quick fail criteria assessment OK, I am quick failing this on the basis that it is not referenced to reliable sources. Article de listed. Please bring back to WP:GAN when this has been fixed. The prose needs a thorough copy edit to convert into reable English, you may wish to enlist the aid of a good copy-editor at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * All citations are to blogs or sources which merely report other sources. The original sources should be cited, eg Sunday Telegraph, Jonathan Cape, Daily Express. Please read WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 2) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 3) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 4) 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.