Talk:Archie McKellar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No recent edit warring appears to have happened on this article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

• Tone and Neutrality: This article at present seems to have a major problem with neutrality - I make particular reference to the section "Personality and leadership". The entire section smells like praise of the topic, which is inappropriate in an encyclopedic entry. Also, the "Early life" section reads more like a story version of a biography than an encyclopedic one. This is going to have to be changed if I'm going to pass this article. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't approached this article any differently to others that have gone to G.A. and passed.

I can't understand how it glorifies Mckellar? Can you be more specific? Its an anaylsis of his personality by Bowyer, a prolific writer/author/historian on the subject and is sourced virtually to the word. And it hardly flattering.

Vis-à-vis Early Life: I can't agree here either. There is precious little and I've put everything in as per the sources.

I am affraid I'm reluctant to change anything, particularly without greater clarification (perhaps sentence by sentence?).

G.A is not the be all and end all, and I can't pass an article I don't believe is appropriate - being the interested party. Best Regards, Dapi89 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)