Talk:Brian Halligan/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The article has a very short lead and would require expansion. That is just one of the many comments which I am going to list below. Well done! Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Please unlink all the Brian Halligan (bold) in the References section. Well done! Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Prior to Groove Networks, Brian worked at Parametric Technology Corporation in several roles leading up to Senior Vice President of the Pacific Rim. is not referenced. I have put one [citation needed] tag in the prose. The reviewer has no other notes here. Well done! Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Ref No.5 is a dead link, please fix it. The reviewer has no other notes here. Well done! Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Any of the sections are one to three sentences long, bar 'Publications'. Is there really nothing about him when you Google his name? Getting there, getting there, but a few more expansions needed... Good luck! See comments Well done! Neutral Neutral
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    When the unreferenced fact I gave above is referenced, I can give neutral an 'aye'. The reviewer has no other notes here. Well done! Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass 7 days to improve, if not done in 7 days, a 'nay'. Still on hold, though... Well done! Passed!

Discussion[edit]

  1. The article has a very short lead and would require expansion.
  2. The 'See Also' section would have to be wikilinks only, not prose.
  3. When I saw the last 4 sections, I actually got confused. I am going to change it to how it should be, in simple terms, if you agree.
  4. Ask me questions if you need to.

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As for your point #3 (4 sections) I tried to follow the example in the MoS esp. WP:FOOTERS. I revived the dead link. I'll come back to the other points this weekend. Thanks again. Woz2 (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you were following this picture:

In that, they mean to have that layout, except expanded sections. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I expanded the lead and the body text and added several new references from reliable sources like the The Boston Globe, MIT, Ernst & Young, etc. How is it now? Getting there? Woz2 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is getting there, but the lede still needs to be expanded! It would need at least two paragraphs to make a fine lede.
'Corporate and non-profit organization governance' is only one sentence, could that be expanded, or at least merged then with another section. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK Thanks again. How is it now? Woz2 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting better, but is there any more potential sections, if not then, I will have no other choice but to pass. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a cite for the revenue. When you say "more sections" do you mean divide the existing content into more sections? Or that the article is too short (i.e that it needs both more content and more sections)? If the latter, how much longer (50% 2x, 3x) roughly? I looked in the GAN criteria and the MoS and couldn't find any guidence on overall length. Any pointers? Woz2 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert in this area, so I would not know how much content is available on him,, so, when I say, "More potential sections", I mean, are there any more sections that could be added. So, are there any more potential sections? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It covers all the aspects I'm aware of. I looked at the GA criteria namely:
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;(note 4) and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
(note 4) This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
...and I believe this article in its present state meets that standard. Thanks again. Woz2 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I was just asking is there anything more that could be put in there as per 3a. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PASSED — Pass Pass
Well done on bringing this article to be a Good Article! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Halligan/GA1&oldid=1038140876"