Talk:Eddie Bayers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SabreBD (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Its been far too long a delay. I have just started on this and will post here when I have time to get some comments together.--SabreBD (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Reasonably well written and generally complies sufficiently with the MoS, but there are couple of issues with MOS:BIO

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Not all online references are live links

   The article is very well referenced.

   Sources all appear to be reliable

   All sources that can be linked support the cited statements

3. It is broad in its coverage of important aspects of the subjects life and career.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It appears fair and un-biassed

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no edit warring

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):

   One image used, with correct licensing and a caption. Might be nice to see more pictures (for example one with a band - although I know this can be difficult), but not a GA requirement

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a well-written and very well-sourced article that can easily pass the good article review with a couple of minor fixes:

• MOS:BIO says that the opening paragraph (i.e. the lead) of a biographical article should contain the date of birth (its on the infobox, but just needs adding to the text) and indicates it should include nationality.

• The article is very well referenced and these are consistent and conform to the guidelines, but some of the references do not go through to the target article (notes 1 and 6 for example) - probably because the target has been moved. Either the target needs to be found or some other sources found. Note 1 is quite important as it substantiates the basic biographical details.

It should be possible to pass the article as GA when these minor points are fixed.--SabreBD (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)