Talk:Alfred Hitchcock/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose could do with some work (eg. "as his wife being a private person she was keen to avoid public attention"; there is overlinking, particularly in the lead, which, along with multiple cites in the lead, makes it a bit distracting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The most obvious problem is that the article needs more citations. There are quite a lot of {{citation needed}} tags, some of which have been there since February 2009. There is at least one direct quote without an inline citation, which is required by WP:WIAGA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is already a large article. I see that sections have been split off in the past, more may need to be split, but summary style needs to be employed. At the moment, there are two sections on important aspects of the subject, that are each only two lines long. I also worry about the broadness of the article given that there are several books in the "further reading" section that haven't been used, and others that have only been used minimally.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm afraid there's too much work to be done to list the article as a GA at this time.

There are also far too many external links, a fact that the nominator apparently agrees with. Some of them may be useable as sources, in which case they should be used. Otherwise, if a website adds nothing that a potential featured article can't provide, it shouldn't be linked to. Check the toolbox links above to see an automated peer review that has some suggestions. The Checklinks tool shows some dead links in the references. The article needs some work, but with an article like this that is already large, has had many editors over the years and has so much source material to draw from, I'd really recommend taking it to peer review before a further GA nomination, and perhaps asking for help at the biography and film wikiprojects.--BelovedFreak 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)