Talk:Robert Boulter

 

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Robert Boulter/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessmment will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Instructions: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

 

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made --Whiteguru (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Reference 1 is primary, and cites two Wikipedia pages. Neither reference Robert Boulter.
• Reference 2 is a mention, not really a reliable source.
• Reference 3 goes to the Wikipedia page for the defunct Independent on Sunday
• Reference 4 goes to the Wikipedia page for The Herald (Glasgow)
• Reference 5 goes to the Wikipedia page for Evening Standard
• Reference 6 goes to the Wikipedia page for Judge John Deed
• Ditto Reference 7,8,9,10. All go to Wikipedia pages and not sources.
• Reference 11 is a dead link
• Reference 14 is a dead link
• References 15,16,17 all go to Wikipedia pages and not the source.
• Reference 22 is a 404, reference 23 goes to the Wikipedia page for Doctors.
• Reference 25 is likely a permanent dead link
• Reference 27 goes to the Wikipedia page for Daylight Robbery (2008 film)
• References 32, 33 go to the Wikipedia page for Waking the Dead.
• Ditto References 34,35

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• This article suffers from WP:PROSELINE - he starred in this, he performed that role here, this role there.
• There is no significant notability here except for a claim to fame as a (trial) stand-in for a young Luke Skywalker in The Force Awakens.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• Given the number of links to roles played by this actor without proper references, this page appears to be WP:FANCRUFT

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page created 11 October 2012
• 62 edits to this page by 36 editors in that time.
• Page achieved GA status on 13 July 2013
• Page creator is blocked for sockpuppetry, 26 November 2020
• There are no other significant editors except bots and page checkers.
• may need reassessment was added on 27 April 2021;

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

• Page is not illustrated with any images. It has tables of acting roles.

1. Overall:

• There are a lot of problems with references on this page. Using Wikipedia as a source. WP:NOTSOURCE applies.
• Repair of sources will be needed to keep Good Article status.       --Whiteguru (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 

• Legitimate concerns raised above were not addressed. Should editors seek another reassessment, the issues raised above need to be addressed first before a reassessment can be commenced. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Delisted as Good Article