# Talk:Samuel J. Briskin

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samuel J. Briskin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wikicology (talk · contribs) 09:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this GA nomination, Onel5969. I will go through the article in details later today. I might be a bit slow with this review. If you think I'm too slow and that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I'm an extremely slow reviewer but my aim is always to pass rather than fail; I would rather push to improve an article rather than simply fail the review. I will normally help with minor improvement rather than listing them here. Anything more significant than minor improvements, I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the GA criteria. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


### Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable? 
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 


### Comments on GA criteria
Pass
Article is recently created and is stable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
There is an appropriate reference section. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is focused and pertinent.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Prose is clear and readable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Most aspects of the relevant MoS criteria are met. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Prose is clear and readable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Major aspects. Article appears to cover the main points - I'm not seeing anything substantial missing. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Images used are relevant, and appropriately captioned. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Images have appropriate copyright information. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 17:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Query
Fail


### Pass
This is an informative and helpful article on an important film producer. Passed as meeting Good Article criteria. Congratulations!


### General comments