Jump to content

Talk:Ryan Ashley

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ryan Ashley Malarkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

Early life and career

[edit]

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): - No images
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

GA? Without an image?

[edit]

Czar, how can an article gain GA class without an image? This article also seems pretty short for a GA. Yoninah (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to ping Lee Vilenski, the GA reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the GA criteria says "it must have an image" - it just says it should be "illustrated, if possible" and should list any copyrights.
I take that to mean, if there is images available on commons, or a NFCC argument could be made, it should be added and have the correct copyright embellished.
For BLPs specifically, almost all images fail NFCC #1, unless they are physically taken by someone or a copyright owner releases the item.
There are other GAs without images, for instance Don Zimmerman (lacrosse) which was the second random GA I looked at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: OK, I hear. But Don Zimmerman (lacrosse) is much longer and more detailed than the current article. I would give the current article a C-class, max. Most of my C-class articles are more detailed than this. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Length has zero to do with GA quality. There are tonnes of much shorter articles than this that are GAs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]