Talk:Mike Mondo/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Michael Brendli/GA1)
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: no disambiguations found

Link rot: one dead link tagged (ref #3 [1] is a blank page

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    The prose meets the "reasonably good" standard and the article complies sufficiently with the MoS.
    Personal life: teh sentences need to be consolidated into one paragraph.
    I made few copy edits, mostly for spelling.[2]
    Combined paragraph. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    As mentioned above ref #3 [the rap sheet) is just a blank page. This presents a problem for the citation about his arrest and bail. that statement absolutely has to be cited.
    It seems as though his record has been clean. I made a search and didn't find anything. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    Well, if it can't be sourced that statement needs to be removed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    I'll let Nici decide on that, since she expanded the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    I understand your position, I did email Nici, who it appears is away from Wikipedia for a while. I am going to comment out that sentence as per WP:BLP guidelines. Then it can be re-added if sources are found. BLP criteria are quite clear on unsourced contentious material. I have also commented out all instances of <ref name="arrest">. I accept the details about weight and height on good faith.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    References supplied appear to be reliable and support the cited statements. All statements are sufficiently well cited.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    I guess that there isn't much more about his personal life to be found.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Two images used, both correctly tagged and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    OK, just a couple of points raised above, on hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
    OK, as the contentious unsourced material has been commented out, I am happy to pass this as a Good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply