Talk:Adam Boyd/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Most of the article is OK (although not great) until we get to the Leyton Orient section, which is not only incomplete (see below) but also is poor shape with numerous one sentence paragraphs. This needs to be converted into acceptable prose. I would also like to see the lead expanded and updated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

All additions and expansions need to be thoroughly referenced with reliable sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

This requires updating to include events and feedback of the last two years, especially regarding his time at Leyton Orient. The section on his personal life is very short and very little mention is made of his family or background. This would help create a more complete impression of the man. The section should also be above the table showing his career statistics.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

Although by no means essential, a recognisable image of him would be very helpful for this article. If one cannot be found then at least deal with the deleted image link in the infobox.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been ten days and apart from the image redlink, nothing has been addressed. This article has failed its reassessment I am afraid. To regain GA status it will need to be relisted at WP:GAN or win an appeal at WP:GAR (although the latter is unlikely). Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]