Talk:Buddy Fletcher/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead should be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, it shouldn't contain information not included in the body of the article and so doesn't need references, unless they are being used to back up a direct quote.

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to combine the "Philanthropy" and "Service" sections, possible (but not necessarily) renaming the section to "Philanthropy and service"? These two sections seem to me to fit well together, and they would benefit from not being split.

I think the problem would be that the philanthropy section is all dated, while the service section is not so clearly dated. I would hesitate to mix undated services with the nicely sequenced philanthropy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes sense... Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Reference titles shouldn't be in all capital letters, even if the original source title is, per MOS.

Most of the time people let those slide at WP:GAC, so I just copy and paste unless I am applying for WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #8 needs a publisher, as does #15

I can not find one for 15.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nicely written article. I have a couple of questions/comments about MOS and referencing, so I am putting the article on hold until these can be resolved. Drop me a note here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]