Talk:Michael Bishop (author)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS): See notes on Lead below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): See notes below on References.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects) b (focused) See notes below on Broad/Focus

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias WP:BLP:

5. It is stable.

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) See notes on Images below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

User:Hometech began a review here: Talk:Michael Bishop (author)#GA on hold but has since gone inactive. To move things along, I can help complete the review. --maclean (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• References
  • Please add the "|publisher= " field to all references.
  • Please clarify what "SFRA 2009 Program Book: 15" is referring to. What is SFRA? This is used to reference much of "Biography" but a "program book" sounds like promotional literature. Can the contents be confirmed elsewhere? or is the info exclusive to this program book?
• Images
  • There are 6 non-free images using Fair Use rationales. However, the rationales do not describe why the image is necessary — why is it important that we see the covers of some of his books? I could understand 1 such non-free image, maybe 2 if there is something important to communicate, but 6 is really pushing it.
• Lead
  • There is a significant amount of info in the lead that does not appear in the article. WP:LEAD asks that the lead summarize the article, therefore the items found in the lead should be at least be mentioned, and preferably expanded in the article. The lead sprawls over 9 short paragraphs whereas WP:LEAD states that the "lead should contain no more than four paragraphs".
• Broad/Focus
  • I don't believe this article is broad enough and is too dominated by a bibliography. While the bibliography is excellent, it could be split off onto its own article. Currently, this article has little on the man's life and much on his writing career. Can a section be provided like Influences or Style? The lead alludes to more going on his life than the article discusses.

Conclusion

I am not promoting the article to GA at this time. I acknowledge that effort has been made to reduce the number of Fair Use images and add publisher information to the references. However, there are still remaining issues. Anyone may re-nominate the article at any time, but I suggest the above issues be fully dealt with beforehand. --maclean (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah one issue is the introduction which is too long and focuses on minutiae. Seriously, do they need to list the books that he wrote introductions for, or to list all the popular magazines that he has written an article for? Angry bee (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)