Talk:Bruce Dickinson/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 15:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.[reply]

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Reasonably well written, complies sufficiently with MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
You may wish to consider adding a Works cited section so that books which are repeatedly cited have their full details there, and the actual citation just has the author name, year and page number(s). More on this at WP:CITESHORT. This will be required if you go on to FAC.

Titles in cites should not be all capitals, even if they are in the original.

Sources appear reliable, no OR, statements are supported by citations. article is adequately cited.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good coverage, perhaps a slight tendency to have a little too much detail in sedctions as those about his flying career.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
article appears stable
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):
Images used are correctly licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am happy to list this as a GA. If you wish to take this further, please consider a peer review, consistency in citations and a works cited section as mentioned above. There may also be queries about the number of images as many may be regarded as repetitive and are apparently used as decoration, without being discussed in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.