Talk:Eddie Fox/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Jenks24 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   For the purposes of the WP:PRIMARY policy (see below)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

My first question: this article appears to be entirely sourced to primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." For this reason, I am inclined to quickfail this article per criterion 1): it is a long way from meeting the original research policy. Do you have anything to say in the article's defence? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The nominator appears to be inactive, so I will go ahead and fail this nomination after a week. Aside from the primary source issues, the article looks to be in good shape; I checked a few citations, and source-text integrity looked good. Prose good, two images probably more than what could be expected, more detailed than some articles on modern athletes I have reviewed recently. But without the usage of secondary sources which summarize and weigh content, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR is hard to determine. A shame, this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

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.