Talk:Danny Deever/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • Some page needed tags but not all are needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No probs with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Some references to print material have page needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

   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:

   • This is an excellent article, but there is one small problem. Page numbers are needed for reference #3, #4 and #5. Tag have been left by another editor. I managed to find an online source for reference #6. I am placing the reassessemnt on hold, whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

   • All now directly reffed. I've removed one of the cites, as it seemed to just duplicate material found in another one, and I couldn't find a print copy to confirm. Anything else looks like it needs brought up to spec? Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

   • All OK, now. I am happy to keep at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)