Talk:Arthur Upfield/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 16, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Although this is a short article the Lead' should be a summary of the whole article, which it is not currently. Obviously the list of works does not need summarizing, but there should be mention of his life, military service, etc also the TV series. The Works section needs reorganising - I would suggest a section on Reception /Criticism is needed ; you have the basis in the first part of Works. There is no need for the German titles - perhaps this article was translated from the German wiki? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

   I've had a crack at this, can you please give it a look and let me know if it's of an appropriate length and style? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC). Yes that is fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I fixed a number of broken links. Forums such as ref #13 [1] are not RS and need to be replaced. There are a number of citation needed tags dating back to January 2008. There are a large number of unsupported statements such as Keating & Priestley's comments. I think there needs to be a citation for the allegation of book piracy in the US editions.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OK, on hold for seven days for the above issues to be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC) OK, there are still outstanding citation needed tags, so I will de-list. The article can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)