Talk:Lee H. Letts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

Needs a copyedit/rewrite

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Contains self-referencing

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

Needs a reorganization and major cut of reviews, especially in the lead

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

Contains POV

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm quick failing this as the issues with it are too numerous to put this on hold. Unfortunately this isn't even close to GA. I strongly suggest you view existing good articles and the good article criteria. The lead doesn't summarize the article, it contains examples of POV such as "beauty" and self-referencing to wikipedia and is poorly-structured and researched in the body.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)