Talk:Tom Laughlin/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Link rot: two dead links found and tagged. The YouTube video has been removed; the Google News cache has gone, generally these do not last very long.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are a lot of very short one and two sentence paragraphs. It would be better to consolidate these into slightly longer paragraphs.

   Make sure that quotes have leading quotation marks, e.g. At a private screening, Senator Vance Hartke got up, because it was about how the Senate was bought out by the nuclear industry. He got up and charged me. Walter Cronkite's daughter was there, [and] Lucille Ball. And he said, 'You'll never get this released. This house you have, everything will be destroyed.' [I]t was three years later, he gets indicted for the exact crime that we showed in the movie." See WP:Mos#Quotation marks

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   ref #4 [1] fails verification, it just refers to "the Tom Laughlin ineligibility muddle". there is nothing that really substantiates those two sentences.

   ref #76[2] Template:Cite episode has a paramater for saying where (in minutes and seconds) the particular passage is that supports the statement. It would be best to use this as this a lengthy segment

   References are to reliable sources, and apart from the exceptions above support the cited statements. There are two dead links as noted above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

   No images used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   I shall be looking at this again on 20 April, nothing has been done to address these concerns yet as far as I can see. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

   Well apart from one minor revert by the nominator there has been no attempt to address these issues so I am failing the nomination. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)