Talk:Michael Atiyah/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: five found, three fixed and two tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Although somewhat dense in part the prose is "reasonably well written.

The artcile complies sufficiently with the Manual of Style.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Two dead links in the External links section. I couldn't find them in the internet archive, I guess you could just remove them.

All other references check out.

I placed some citation needed tags on paragraphs which contain statements that need citing. Not done
I see that the dead links have been removed, but nothing has been done about the needed citations. This needs to be fixed, the deadline is 21 November. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Broad and focussed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Correctly tagged, licensed and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed.

Well the citation needed tgs have not been addressed so I am failing this as seven days have elapsed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]