Jump to content

Talk:Lee H. Letts/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: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
Needs a copyedit/rewrite
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Contains self-referencing
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
Needs a reorganization and major cut of reviews, especially in the lead
  1. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
Contains POV
  1. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  3. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm quick failing this as the issues with it are too numerous to put this on hold. Unfortunately this isn't even close to GA. I strongly suggest you view existing good articles and the good article criteria. The lead doesn't summarize the article, it contains examples of POV such as "beauty" and self-referencing to wikipedia and is poorly-structured and researched in the body.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]