Talk:David Meerman Scott/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 14:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review
[edit]- Well-written:
Please expand the lede to conform with WP:LEAD.DonePlease use only one space in between sections for the page to have a neat profile.Add more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.DoneAs per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.DonePlease reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.DoneI have spotted the following contractions: isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.Done- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) |
|
Pass |
(b) (MoS) |
|
Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The reviewer has no notes here. | Pass |
Result
[edit]Result | Notes |
---|---|
On hold | On hold for 7 days, or lots of work put into it. Otherwise, I will have to fail this article. Good luck! |
Discussion
[edit]Will continue reviewing later. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Added year to photo caption, created Personal life section, merged Whitehouse Town hall into Publications (print and online) section Woz2 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Re: Your request for removing the link breaks between cite attributes: I find the line breaks help readability so I'd like to leave them per MOS:STABILITY "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason." Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kk, just that I find it less easy to navigate in that, but ok, its grand... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "Add more links" - not sure what the issue is here... seems to me there a lot of links inbound and outbound already... Can you clarify? Woz2 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "isn't" The only "isn't" is a direct quote of the title of one of the cites. I don't think it should be expanded. Woz2 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Re: reorder/rename last few sections. I read WP:ORDER and it seems to me the article follows the guidance. What am I missing? Can you clarify Woz2 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Halfway there, but need a seven-day extension to complete it. Woz2 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
PASS — Pass–Well done on yet another article to the GA Standards! Hope you'll be available for the December 2011 Good Article Nominations Backlog Elimination Drive! Well done! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 21:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Hope to join the drive over the holidays.Woz2 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional Notes
[edit]- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.