Talk:Tom Hull (critic)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this article. Artem.G (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Few comments/question:

I skimmed the article, and it seems that the main problem is that it looks a lot like promotion. From the 18 references cited, (one cited 15 times, another one 3), only 6 are not authored by Hull himself or by his close friend Christgau. If he is notable critic he should be mentioned by somebody during his career.

Section '1980s–1990s: Career in software' cites only Hull and Christgau. The passages like first working on an Apple II computer, which he quickly traded for a S-100 bus with Zilog Z80 processor. seems to be not really important. Another sentence Hull spent five years reading in his room, occasionally writing, and keeping to himself, before considering college. seems to be unverifiable.

In my opinion the article should be improved by non-primary sources (not by Hull and his best friend), and can be rewritten a bit to be less promotional. I will put it on hold for a week, to give you time to address these issues. Artem.G (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking this one on! Unfortunately, though, I have to agree with you. I had asked around a bit a while ago about this article's chances here as a BLP reliant on primary-source material, but didn't get any helpful responses, so I just chanced it by nominating. Best to just fail it and move on. isento (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Then fail it is, though I'll be happy to review it if you'll decide to rework it a bit. Artem.G (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)