Talk:Danny Deever/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    •  
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    •  
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    •  
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    •  

No probs with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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, 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:  
    • This is an excellent article, but there is one small problem. Page numbers are needed for reference #3, #4 and #5. Tag have been left by another editor. I managed to find an online source for reference #6. I am placing the reassessemnt on hold, whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • All now directly reffed. I've removed one of the cites, as it seemed to just duplicate material found in another one, and I couldn't find a print copy to confirm. Anything else looks like it needs brought up to spec? Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply