This peer review discussion has been closed.
James Nesbitt is an actor who frequently appears in films and TV series playing a character called "James Nesbitt". This article passed GAN last July. The reviewer said that the prose was the strongest part of the article but I'm wondering whether it's good enough for FA. I'm also wondering whether it's structured well enough. Thanks.
Bradley0110 (
talk)
12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: As a first instalment, here are my comments on the first few sections. At the moment I am concentrating on prose, which I have to say is not yet at FA standard. I have made a few minor copyedits in the text.
Perhaps you would consider these points. I will be back with more later. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Further points:-
I'll try and finish the review tomorrow. Brianboulton ( talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Finishing off
I don't have any more points. The prose looks in reasonable shape. Some indication that you have seen this review would be nice. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this is taking so long -- I had hoped to have the rewrite done this week so that other reviewers could weigh-in during the PR. I do appreciate the time you've taken to do this review, and the altered article should be ready tomorrow. Bradley0110 ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
James Nesbitt is an actor who frequently appears in films and TV series playing a character called "James Nesbitt". This article passed GAN last July. The reviewer said that the prose was the strongest part of the article but I'm wondering whether it's good enough for FA. I'm also wondering whether it's structured well enough. Thanks.
Bradley0110 (
talk)
12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: As a first instalment, here are my comments on the first few sections. At the moment I am concentrating on prose, which I have to say is not yet at FA standard. I have made a few minor copyedits in the text.
Perhaps you would consider these points. I will be back with more later. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Further points:-
I'll try and finish the review tomorrow. Brianboulton ( talk) 01:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Finishing off
I don't have any more points. The prose looks in reasonable shape. Some indication that you have seen this review would be nice. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this is taking so long -- I had hoped to have the rewrite done this week so that other reviewers could weigh-in during the PR. I do appreciate the time you've taken to do this review, and the altered article should be ready tomorrow. Bradley0110 ( talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)