Jump to content

Talk:Mike Mondo/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]