Talk:Jonah Lomu/GA1

GA Reassessment

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 large number of issues that need to be addressed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is very poor, with stubby single line paragraphs. Lots of peacock terms, cliche and poor writing. Article needs a major overhaul to come up to standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Sourcing is dreadful. Article's sourcing needs serious work both in citation of statements and wider use of sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Not up to date and hard to tell if this article is cmplete due to poor writing and sourcing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Too many peacock terms, not enough sources to make me comfortable agreeing with either of these.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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):

No rationale for fair-use image.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If someone is willing to commit to making a serious effort to improve this article, let me know here or on my talk page in that time period. I will then go through the article with that person and make a detailed list of specific improvements to be worked on. If no one comes forward, the article will be delisted. 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. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days and no response, this article is now delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]