Talk:Harry Männil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: fixed two.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: tagged one dead link, could not find an archived version at the Internet Archive.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Rather poorly written, missing commas, commas used in appropriately, missing prepositions. I made some copy-edits in the lead and the first following section, but the whole article needs a thorough copy-edit in order to render it into "reasonably good" prose. In 1946, he moved to Venezuela, where lived for the rest of his life. Suggest that the help of the WP:Guild of copyeditors is enlisted.

   The lead is rather short and does not provide a thorough summary of the article as per WP:LEAD. His war history is missing for instance

   Several stray sentences that need to be consolidated into paragraphs.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   One dead link found and tagged as noted above.

   Ref #1 is apparently a an untrusted connection.

   Other online references check out.

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:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are a number of issues with this article, primarily that it is very badly written and it is not sufficiently compliant with the manual of style. It really should not have been nominated in this poor stae, so I am failing this nomination. Please renominate when it has been thoroughly copy-edited by un-involved editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)