Talk:Alan Mulally/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article seems to meet all 6 criteria. Thank you for your consideration of this article. Chergles (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is my checklist.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: , no non-free images

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: PLEASE SOMEONE ELSE ALSO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION

However, I'll let someone else also review it. I'm new to this so I'm using the above only as a checklist Chergles (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are several breaches of the MOS. For instance, dates and even years are wikilinked. References are not fully within the cite template: use the "date" and "accessdate" to add those within the templates. Some ref are not even within a cite template. There are also a few buzzwords that should be removed (such as revolutionary). There is also a lot of overcapitalization (see MOS:CAPS); for instance "president" should only be capitalized if used as a prefix (i.e. President Mulally vs. Mulally is president of Ford).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For a article on a CEO of one of the worlds largest corporations, it is extremely short. Topics mentioned seem to deviate from important issues, and instead cover trivia. Especially the introduction is very short, and probably be fivefold the current length. To meet GA criteria, a lot more information on duties in Boeing must be covered (he spend some 35 years there), plus more on person life (such as hobbies), where he grew up etc. I also find the article tends towards recemtism.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm sorry, but this article is far away from meeting the GA criteria. Except for the reference formatting and date wikilinking, it is good enough prose, but it is far to short for GA for a so important person. It should probably be three to five times the current length. Good luck with further improvements to the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)