Talk:G. Wayne Clough/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is ok

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref 53 is dead and a blog (often unreliable)

   Are you referring to the source by Louise Blouin Media? It doesn't appear to be dead, and that company also publishes art magazines and dead-tree books, if that helps. See about us on their site. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   Findagrave is usually unreliable, so I suggest you find a better source.

   I replaced it with something from the Washington Post. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   Ref 54 accepted in good faith

   It looks like it's by the Los Angeles Times. The author's twitter bio says he is a "Los Angeles Times art critic" so on that basis it seems legitimate to me. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   Ref 61 is dead

   Yeah, all of the Georgia Tech organization pages were moved. Hold on a second... fixed. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   --GoP_T^C_N 19:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Meets criteria :)--GoP_T^C_N 09:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you for reviewing this article. I'll have a look at those references. Disavian (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)