| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a pre-FAC assessment. I've done a lot of work on it over the past six weeks or so, and it seems to be fairly complete. But is there anything else I should add? Also I'm interested to know if this article would be acceptable at FAC. There's been some debate over the issue on the talk page, together with a third opinion that seems to give it the green light, but I've held off re-adding it just in case there is a problem. In reviewing this please note that because I use text-to-speech for reading lengthy articles, and edit with a screen magnifier some issues, such as punctuation may be difficult for me to address. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Quick comment: if you want to know if something is acceptable for FA or not, the verifiability noticeboard (WP:V/N) is the place to go. Cheers, ResMar 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly this has gone unanswered at the above noticeboard and the question is now archived, so I have to assume it could be a problem unless otherwise advised at FAC. I've removed two further refs added yesterday for the same reason, as they dated back to the 1970s, decades before anyone had thought of making this film, and even before Hedren herself made allegations against the director. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's most likely that a FAC reviewer will question the source since the article is being hosted by a wiki. Have you tried WP:RS/N? All the best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I did try them, but didn't get a response. The statement is supported by a more up-to-date source that discusses the information in relation to the film, so I guess it doesn't matter too much. The discussion is archived here if anyone wants to give it a shot. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Woops, I'd forgotten that V/N and RS/N were one and the same. Anyway, good luck! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. You kind of confirmed what I was thinking anyway. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Woops, I'd forgotten that V/N and RS/N were one and the same. Anyway, good luck! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I did try them, but didn't get a response. The statement is supported by a more up-to-date source that discusses the information in relation to the film, so I guess it doesn't matter too much. The discussion is archived here if anyone wants to give it a shot. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's most likely that a FAC reviewer will question the source since the article is being hosted by a wiki. Have you tried WP:RS/N? All the best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly this has gone unanswered at the above noticeboard and the question is now archived, so I have to assume it could be a problem unless otherwise advised at FAC. I've removed two further refs added yesterday for the same reason, as they dated back to the 1970s, decades before anyone had thought of making this film, and even before Hedren herself made allegations against the director. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll give it a shot. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)