Failed "good article" nomination
- 1. Well written?: Writing could use some improvement, suggest a peer review, as well as enlisting the help of some editors previously uninvolved in the article, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Unsourced portions throughout the article. This is essentially grounds for a quick fail.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: The article seems a bit short, for such a public figure, and it only draws on material from 15 sources. Surely this individual has been discussed in many more secondary sources.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Written from a neutral tone. Passes here.
- 5. Article stability? Other than vandalism, no major conflicts apparent in the edit history or on the talk page. Passes here.
- 6. Images?: File:M-Stone 2007.jpg (Wikimedia Commons) and File:Kyle.svg (fair use) = passes here.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)