Dave Stamper was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Dave Stamper is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles
MOS compliance is ok, but could be better. I'd drop the heading level on sections 2-5, grouping them all under "Career" or the like. However, the lead is much too short (given the length of the article, I'd say one paragraph of good size should do it. Two sentences is too little, though). Also, when you quote June Moon, you have "Dave Stamper says its sure fire." Should this be "it's sure fire"? I don't have a copy of the play so I don't know if this is a mistake in the original text (which case you should note it with [sic]) or a typo here.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are fine. Both of them used are in the public domain so that's no issue.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm probably going to pass this article, however, before this can happen I would like the first point to be addressed. Just expand the lead to summarise the article's content a bit more - one sentence for every heading is about right. When doing so, though, bear in mind that sections 2-5 should be grouped under one heading, not left as they are. When this is done, let me know, and until then, I'll keep the article on hold.|I'm probably going to pass this article, however, before this can happen I would like the first point to be addressed. Just expand the lead to summarise the article's content a bit more - one sentence for every heading is about right. When doing so, though, bear in mind that sections 2-5 should be grouped under one heading, not left as they are. When this is done, let me know, and until then, I'll keep the article on hold.
I'm satisfied with the changes made, and will pass the article.|}}
Thanks for taking the time to review. I've done the body edits you've suggested, and will work on the lead in the next day or two. The June Moon problem was due to a OCR error. K8 fan (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for reviewing the article. Hopefully the Good Article status will attract the attention of a better writer than myself to tweak the prose a bit. As you can see from the history, I've added bits and pieces over a fairly long period of time, haven't done much to polish it and don't have the distance from the content to do a good job.K8 fan (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think people are more inclined to pitch in when they feel they're adding to something proven rather than needing to overhaul something rough, so you've laid a good foundation for future editors to improve this further. GRAPPLEX19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dave Stamper/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
My reason for bring this up to for review is mainly Good Article Criterion 2: "Is it factually accurate and verifiable?" There are numerous biographical claims lacking inline citations (or apparent presence in any listed sources), and most of the citations are in fact primary sources that merely indicate existence of a work, but do not necessarily support the claims in the accompanying text (the fact that his works appear in Ziegfeld Follies of 1913 per IBDB does not verify he "began writing songs" in 1912. The text reads largely as written by someone with intimate yet incompletely documented knowledge of the subject, crafting an original narrative by connecting primary sources, and statements like "thus he would have not been able to..." read like improper synthesis. I've added a few references to aid in verification, but further sources and scrutiny is needed. In my view, this does not meet Good Article Criteria now, nor did it in 2011. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
