Talk:Barny Boatman/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- a (prose):
- The prose is poor, maybe a 6/10. Problems are the result of uneven sections, see below.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- The section on "Other Poker Activities" is a mess: Instead of the list and the loose sentences, please reorganise the section into prose that describes Boatman's career chronologically. This section should be readable, engaging and formatted in paragraphs of adequate length.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although this is not a terrible article, it is not up to GA standards and no work has been done. Therefore this article is no longer a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)