Talk:Michael Chabon/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • I found many dead links using this tool. These need replacing. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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:

   • OK, all but one criteria met, I fixed a couple of inline html links, converting them to properly formatted citations. But as you will have seen above there are a number of dead links which need fixing. On hold whilst this is sorted out. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All the links have been fixed, updated, or replaced with full print citations--except one, which I have commented out until I can find a replacement, and a couple instances where a link to the author's defunct official website seems to be required by the archive template being used. There are still a few formatting issues to clean up, but otherwise the cites have all been vetted.--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have wikicommented out the author website in the infobox as it appear to be broken at present. Keep checking as it may get fixed in the future. Keep GA status, thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)