Talk:Mike Mondo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: no disambiguations found

Link rot: one dead link tagged (ref #3 [1] is a blank page

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose meets the "reasonably good" standard and the article complies sufficiently with the MoS.

   Personal life: teh sentences need to be consolidated into one paragraph.

   I made few copy edits, mostly for spelling.[2]

   Combined paragraph. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   As mentioned above ref #3 [the rap sheet) is just a blank page. This presents a problem for the citation about his arrest and bail. that statement absolutely has to be cited.

   It seems as though his record has been clean. I made a search and didn't find anything. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   Well, if it can't be sourced that statement needs to be removed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   I'll let Nici decide on that, since she expanded the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   I understand your position, I did email Nici, who it appears is away from Wikipedia for a while. I am going to comment out that sentence as per WP:BLP guidelines. Then it can be re-added if sources are found. BLP criteria are quite clear on unsourced contentious material. I have also commented out all instances of <ref name="arrest">. I accept the details about weight and height on good faith.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

   References supplied appear to be reliable and support the cited statements. All statements are sufficiently well cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I guess that there isn't much more about his personal life to be found.

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):

   Two images used, both correctly tagged and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, just a couple of points raised above, on hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, as the contentious unsourced material has been commented out, I am happy to pass this as a Good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)