![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Image
Has anyone tried contacting Mr. Tong for an image? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice try, alas that's a Creative Commons "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic" (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), according to the Flickr uploader. We can't have "NonCommercial" for images on WP. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Chao/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! I will be waiting... Actually I already have. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay just finished a review for Christopher Nolan, will get to this one soon as well. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
- NOTE: Please respond below this entire review, and not interspersed in the individual points, thank you!
- Writing quality is okay, but several points of recommendations:
- Lede/intro sect - no need for citations here, per WP:LEAD, the material should be cited lower in the main article body text, and not in the lede intro unless specifically controversial.
- Lede/intro sect - bit small, please expand, per WP:LEAD, lede/intro sect should adequately function as a standalone summary of the entire article contents.
- Infobox - can more fields and info be added to the infobox?
- Writing quality - please post to WP:GOCE requests page for previously uninvolved copyeditor, and to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects asking for help with copyediting. Even if they don't come before GA Review is over, still a good idea to go and make those requests.
- Background - background of what? More specific title of this sect would be helpful.
- Portals - please convert to {{Portal bar}} as footer at bottom of article and add some additional relevant portals, location of individual, etc.
- See also - missing, consider adding some See also links to a sect called See also
- Early life and education - a bit sparse, any more research for more info on this aspect please?
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. No issues here.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: See comments above about things to add.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.
- 5. Article stability? No issues here. After inspection of article edit history going back over one month, and upon inspection of talk page.
- 6. Images?: No issues here. No images used.
NOTE: Please respond below this entire review, and not interspersed in the individual points, thank you!
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review! See also links would be redundant when the links are present as wiki links in the body itself, right? I have added a portal bar, more fields to the Infobox, stripped off the lede's citations, and beefed it up with words. I am just about to go to the copy editors' door. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the updates! Starting to look a bit better already. Please keep me posted here, below. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done.
- Background is good enough, methinks. Anything more wordy reads like an old grandma's story. I have used just about everything to be found about his early life online. GA does not need to be overwhelmingly comprehensive too. Added "See also" -- Two links. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done.
- Thanks for the updates! Starting to look a bit better already. Please keep me posted here, below. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
GA passed
Good job addressing suggestions, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Aligato gozaimasu. :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Article quality
Since it has been awhile since the last assessment, I have had another look at the current version and saw that the entire "Acting" section is uncited. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Unreferenced section in the "Acting" and "Professional wrestling" sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.