Jump to content

Talk:Bernard Foing/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adavis444 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC) From the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]


As Adavis444 has not implemented a review, despite a reminder on their talk page, i am taking over this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Disambiguations: No dabs found.

Linkrot: No dead links found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead does not adequately summarise the article. Please read WP:LEAD.
    Prose is reasonable.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    References appear OK, but few mention him in more than passing as an author.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    As a biography, this is not at all broad in its coverage, the article is primarily about projects that Foing has been involved in. As a BLP it is still stub class.
  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):
    Non free images must not be used in the infobox or lead for BLPs, as per WP:Fair use#Images
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am failing this nomination at the present time as I feel that the article is not sufficiently broad in its coverage. The points about the lead and the non-free image also need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]