Talk:Clint Watts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox;
  • Per WP:LEAD, lead must be summary of the article's body. Please don't present any new information if otherwise needed. I could see 3–4 sentences which can be moved to the boy and summarized in the lead.
  • Per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is the summary i.e. already cited in the body, there is no need to cite again the lead
  • Basic information such as date and place of birth is missing. This is very important
• Basic information such as the date and place of birth including little info about his parents and siblings (if any) must be mentioned.
• Section 1;
  • Where did he do his schooling?
  • Watts received a bachelor of science degree graduated in sciences from the United States Military Academy
  • from the United States Military Academy? When, in which year?
  • Subsequently he garnered a master of arts after graduating from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in 2005 -> In 2005, he did his master of arts from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies
• Section 2.1;
  • When was he commissioned?
  • In which rank did he serve as Executive Officer of the Combating Terrorism Center?
  • In which rank was he recruited into the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
  • What are the dates of promotion?
• Section 2.2;
  • Watts has consulted for the; what is this? This has no meaning. Please check whether it has to be; Watts has been consulted for the
  • Please mention the dates of his service with the FBI, this is critical info
• Section 2.3;
  • He joined with FPRI in 2011
  • Please follow chronology, he first joined and then became its fellow. So that must come next.
• Section 3; all good
  • What is presently doing? His work and position
• 28.9% confidence, violation unlikely.

Though the article presents good information about the subject, some of the basic data is missing. Without them, the article hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Basic info missing, and layout not per the guidelines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)