Talk:Carl Lewis/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has massive issues that need to be urgently addressed.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is poor, perhaps 4/10. Many sections are messy, with short stubby paragraphs thrown in with no thought for flow or readability. There is the horror of a miscelleny section (which should never have passed a GA review) which must be converted into properly organised sentences describing Lewis' life outside of sports.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Most of the online references are inproperly formatted, there are even in text jumps and a couple of "[ibid]" (which frankly looks like a particularly dim copyright violation). Some of those sources look unreliable. In addition, all references should come afte punctuation, not in the middle of sentences.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

No personal life section, which is instead appallingly covered by a "miscelleny"

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

So badly written that it is difficult to tell.

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No action, so this article is no longer a GA. Delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of this assessment, so let me address some of these issues and then you can take a look? Canada Jack (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)