Talk:G. Wayne Clough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article G. Wayne Clough has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Smithsonian Institution-related, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Civil engineering (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Georgia Tech (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Georgia Institute of Technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia / Government (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 
Smithsonian Institution Archives project (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Smithsonian Institution Archives. Learn more about this collaborative project to document the history of the world's largest museum complex, and how you can get involved, here.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:G. Wayne Clough/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is ok
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Ref 53 is dead and a blog (often unreliable)
    Are you referring to the source by Louise Blouin Media? It doesn't appear to be dead, and that company also publishes art magazines and dead-tree books, if that helps. See about us on their site. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Findagrave is usually unreliable, so I suggest you find a better source.
    I replaced it with something from the Washington Post. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Ref 54 accepted in good faith
    It looks like it's by the Los Angeles Times. The author's twitter bio says he is a "Los Angeles Times art critic" so on that basis it seems legitimate to me. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Ref 61 is dead
    Yeah, all of the Georgia Tech organization pages were moved. Hold on a second... fixed. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    --GoPTCN 19:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall: Meets criteria :)--GoPTCN 09:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Pass/Fail:
Thank you for reviewing this article. I'll have a look at those references. Disavian (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)