Talk:Jens Voigt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Otr500 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am in the process of reviewing this article. The size and scope of the article dictates a somewhat longer time frame, than might be considered normal, so please be patient. Otr500 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any contributing editors available? Otr500 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: time frame extended for holidays without placing on hold. Otr500 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Determination

The article has some issues and concerns were being addressed by the nominator. Because of the holidays I extended the review but afterwards the nominator announced (here) of taking a "wikibreak". The review therefore has to be concluded on the merits of the article at this time.

This article is a biographies of living persons and is subjected to higher overall standards. There are 6 specific criteria for a GA article:

1)- Well Written:

a)- The article is well written to a point but has some grammatical errors such as comma splices, some sentence structure issues (Voigt was as a rider generally popular with cycling fans,...), and erratic use of conversions;

b) - The Lead section falls short of satisfying a summary, especially considering GA, with an article this size and needs a paragraph to satisfy NPOV. It "might" be considered to some as trivial but driving 850,000 kilometres (530,000 mi) (17 year career) in a vehicle is a feat but doing this on a bicycle is interesting information (Suggestion).

2)- Verifiability:

a)-

b)- There are issues with references that have been left unresolved. A criteria to use high-quality sources stipulate "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.". This was addressed on the talk page. Work on this was started but not finished.

c)-

3)- Broad in its coverage:

a)- This is an autobiography and is titled as that being the topic. There is a brief mention of his parents in the "Early life" section but jumps into his cycling career. There is a very brief more current "summary" in the "Personal life" section. As for as a biographical article this is relegated to a biographical "timeline" of Voigt's cycling career. The article does mention that he has "six children, the youngest born January 2011.". The article leaves a somewhat questioning atmosphere. He is a "former professional road bicycle racer" so is there a need for a "Retirement" section? There is certainly a need for some coverage, possibly in the "Personal life" section, to answer questions such as what is he doing now, where does he live etc...? It would be more relevant than that about his youngest child with no other family information.

b)- Needs to be checked for excessive details and possible trimming to allow "some" personal biographical information.

4)- Neutral:

There is a lean towards less than neutral treatment specifically concerning the lead. If there is any controversy there should be summary information in the lead for NPOV. In my opinion the issue of doping (suspicions of systematic doping etc...) has been widely debated in this sport and allegations have been voiced causing Voigt to offer statements that he does not "dope" and has never tested positive. This "should" be tastefully as well as neutrally covered in the lead.

5)- Stable:

The article has been relatively stable except of course for improvements.

6)- Illustrated, if possible, by images:

a)- The article appears to be "illustrated nicely and I did not find any issues with the images regarding policy;

b)- An exception is that the Hour Record - bike image, is unnecessary. The Hour record section does not lend relevance to the image, nor does the image compliment the section, or any other sections that I could see. While Wikipedia is certainly not censored I do not see that the image enhances the article at all but simply depicts a vulgar statement at best.

• • I am seeking another set of eyes to go over my assessment and offer comments before making a decision. Otr500 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Otr500, I'll put out the formal request for a second opinion. (I just noticed your comment here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

If we have to go on what is currently on the page, then it is a fail. There are unsourced paragraphs, the lead is too short and your (Otr500) other points are also valid. You've done what you can. EddieHugh (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you as well. The review looks entirely valid, and more importantly the issues haven't been addressed, so I'm closing this as a failed GA. Wizardman 15:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for you assistance. It was my first review so thanks again. I have been suffering from serious allergy problems and not able to do much the last several days. Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)