Talk:Tiësto/GA3

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The main criteria it fails is sourcing/verfiability. Currently has a lot of broken links, i noted this on talk page a little while ago - have tried to fix but more difficult than normal as the sites originally used seem to be discontinued. Article also has style tag. Tom B (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has a number of issues as noted above. Specifically as listed below. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Contains too much un-encyclopaedic information. Needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral encyclopaedic style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• Seven dead links have been tagged for some time.
• ref #2 [1], what makes this a reliable source?

- Replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #6 [2] is a forum , not RS

- Replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #7 [3] is a wordpess blog, not an RS

- replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #8 [4] is a tripod.com site, not RS

- replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #9 [5] bebo is not an RS

- removed ASOTMKX (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #11 [6], what makes this a reliable source?

- removed ASOTMKX (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #12 [7], what makes this a reliable source?

- removed ASOTMKX (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #14 [8], no information supporting statement

- removed ASOTMKX (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• ref #28 [9] Google Answers is not an RS

- removed ASOTMKX (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• In fact very few of the references here are RS, so I will delist immediately

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Too much minutiae

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article contains a large amount of fancruft, no critical reception

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

   What encyclopaedic content is aded by File:Tiesto at london 02 arena.jpg and File:Olympic flame at opening ceremony.jpg?

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Quickfail on grounds of a large number of unreliable sources. Note also the outstanding fancruft tag, which has not been addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)