Talk:Eugene Landy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Comment. This Review is On Hold until the issue pointed out by the citation needed template - "He frequently employed Gestalt therapy in his treatment technique" - sourced. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   What a sad sad story - well-written article, lays out all the facts. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

   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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Ref #8/(Obituary)independent.co.uk has gone dead.

   There is a "citation needed" template. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Ilovetopaint: The unsourced statement should be removed completely. Ref #2/the obituary from The Independent has gone dead. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Ilovetopaint: The obituary from The Independent has gone stale. It must be removed - surely there is another Landy obituary you could use. Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   Why did you hide the Gestalt therapy statement? It should either be removed completely or sourced & kept. Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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:

   Not a hatchet job/attack page, sticks to the facts about this individual. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

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

   No edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

   Both images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This Review is On Hold until the above issues are corrected/adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   Congratulations - it's a GA, all the various issues raised in the course of this Review have been adjusted/corrected. Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I missed the ref suggestion - sorry - and addressed all the issues raised. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)