Talk:Albert Bumgardner

Latest comment: 28 days ago by Arconning in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 14:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Will be reviewing this in a few days! Arconning (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Generalissima Here 'ya go! Arconning (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Arconning: Added an image! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prose and MoS

edit

Lead and infobox

edit
  • I personally don't see any issues.

Early life and education

edit
  • No issues.

Career

edit
  • No issues.
Civic and organizational work
edit
  • No issues.

Later life

edit
  • I mean it's short, could it be integrated to another section? Though, I don't have any issues if it can't be integrated.

Works

edit
  • Does Seattle have to be wikilinked again, alongside with other repeating wikilinked places?
  • Seattle is only linked once in the lede and once in the body as per MOS (and in the table, but its standard practice to repeat links there) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Media

edit
  • I don't see any media right now but it would be nice if you could use a fair use image of him! :)

Refs

edit
  • All sources seem good, sourcechecked and good to go.
  • Earwig picks up nothing substantial.

Misc

edit
  • No ongoing edit war, focused and broad info, neutral.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.