Talk:John Makepeace Bennett
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Mouse Nightshirt in topic Failed "good article" nomination
 | John Makepeace Bennett was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 10, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that John Makepeace Bennett was a pioneer of Australian computer science who was involved in the construction of early computers in England? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Comments
editThe article looks better, however it may need a better lead in other than "he was born" to draw in readers. This is usually done by identifying what others will most note about him. A great way to further improve your article is to pattern it on a featured biography article, such as today's featured article on Eric A. Havelock. A quick google search shows that Bennett deserves to be in Wikipedia. You may want to expand your article by including the googled information. --Jreferee 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
editThis article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 30, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: This article does not have a defined lead section or subsections and the prose is very list like. Phrases like "This was the world's first practical stored program electronic computer, and the world's first computer in regular operation" are confusing to non-experts in the field. Please refer to WP:LEAD, WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT.
- 2. Factually accurate?: This article does not follow the guidelines set by WP:CITE for citing sources; please indicate what references apply to which statements.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: The article is very brief on his actual achievments. He was part of the EDSAC team as a research assistant, but what exactly did he do? Be more specific. The article needs to be fleshed out with more information before passing this criteria.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Article seems to be fine on NPOV.
- 5. Article stability? Article is stable
- 6. Images?: Image is tagged, captioned, and has acceptable copyright licenses.
Summary
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):
c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
This article needs much work before reaching GA status - please refer to the notes made above. When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to drop by my Talk page! Thanks for your work so far.
--Mouse Nightshirt 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)