Talk:Adrian Johns/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Peacemaker67 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC) I'll do this one. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead is inadequate, does not properly summarise life and career |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. 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). | several medals are uncited |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | miscategorisation removed |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Comments
- lead should summarise major life events, not just his current role and immediate past one.
- several awards are unreferenced
- Guggenheim Fellow is categorised but not referenced
Done
- Checked the Guffenheim source, it was a different Adrian Johns. Removed. buffbills7701 20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- no initial caps for ranks unless used in conjunction with his name Done(by Pm67)
- I believe the appropriate honorific prefix includes his naval rank Done
Review completed, on hold for seven days for above comments to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- This nomination will fail unless the above issues are addressed in the next 18 hours or so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Never received a notice that it was on hold. buffbills7701 20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Did one myself, just the lead and unreferenced awards to address. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Buffbills7701:, I'm going to close this tomorrow my time as not listed on the basis of the inadequate lead (1b) and uncited medals (2b). Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)