Talk:Miles Fisher/GA1

GA 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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is clear, with the exception of a few phrases which I will happily address. The spelling and grammar appear to me to be fine.

   B. MoS compliance:

   I believe the article complies with the Manual of Style.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Unfortunately, I do not believe the article addresses the "major aspects" of the topic. For an article on an actor, there should be more information about his personal life, including his decision to pursue acting, and his current relationship if that can be found out. You might believe that this info isn't needed, but although I am not fussy about info on his relationship, I do believe that the article must address how someone went from being educated at Harvard, to impersonating Tom Cruise. Quite a jump :). I also believe there should be more information about his education at Harvard, such as what degree he came out with, if he came out with any degree at all (maybe he might have dropped his course). I imagine you might be thinking "But I may not be able to get this information". I imagine that this type of information may be hard to come across, and I will also look for it as well, but I truly believe this article needs to be more broad in its coverage before it can obtain GA status.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I am concerned that the article doesn't seem to have a bad word to say about Fisher. Maybe there are bad reviews of his impersonation of Tom Cruise around, or maybe bad reviews of his role in The Cleaner? I have neither passed or failed criteria 4, because I would like to see if there are sources that do not compliment Fisher at times, before making a firm decision regarding that. If such sources are found, then they should be incorporated. If they are not found, then I will pass criteria 4 on the basis that no opposing view could be found to portray. I will also look for such sources.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am afraid I do not believe that the article passes the GA criteria at this time. I believe that the concerns I have can be addressed within a week, and thus I will put the article On Hold. I hope I did not appear as harsh at any time during this review. I really do want this article to pass, and I will help you out in getting it up to the level it needs to be. If you would like anymore info about my concerns, please don't hesitate to raise them under the "Comments" section of this review. I will re-assess the article on September 17.

JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you very much JEdgarFreeman (talk · contribs) for your positive comments in the above Quick-Fail-Check section. I believe that thanks to Nsk92 (talk · contribs) 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Since the first GA review of this article, the gaps which existed in the narrative of Fisher's life have been filled to my statisfaction. As a result, I believe that the article is now broad in its coverage.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I have not been able to find, nor has anyone apparently either, Wikipedia-suitable sources that provide a negative commentary on Fisher. Therefore, I have concluded that the article can be considered as neutral as it can be at this moment in time, and thus my concerns over the neutrality of the article have been resolved.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All the problems that I listed in the first GA review that were preventing the article from being GA-class have been solved. Consequently, I am pleased to say, I have determined that this article has passed the GA criteria. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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)