Talk:Clint Watts/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Lead and infobox;
- Per WP:LEAD, lead must be summary of the article's body. Please don't present any new information if otherwise needed. I could see 3–4 sentences which can be moved to the boy and summarized in the lead.
- Per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is the summary i.e. already cited in the body, there is no need to cite again the lead
- Basic information such as date and place of birth is missing. This is very important
- Basic information such as the date and place of birth including little info about his parents and siblings (if any) must be mentioned.
- Section 1;
- Where did he do his schooling?
- Watts
received a bachelor of science degreegraduated in sciences from the United States Military Academy - from the United States Military Academy? When, in which year?
- Subsequently he garnered a master of arts after graduating from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in 2005 -> In 2005, he did his master of arts from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies
- Section 2.1;
- When was he commissioned?
- In which rank did he serve as Executive Officer of the Combating Terrorism Center?
- In which rank was he recruited into the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
- What are the dates of promotion?
- Section 2.2;
- Watts has consulted for the; what is this? This has no meaning. Please check whether it has to be; Watts has been consulted for the
- Please mention the dates of his service with the FBI, this is critical info
- Section 2.3;
- He joined
withFPRI in 2011 - Please follow chronology, he first joined and then became its fellow. So that must come next.
- He joined
- Section 3; all good
- What is presently doing? His work and position
- 28.9% confidence, violation unlikely.
- Though the article presents good information about the subject, some of the basic data is missing. Without them, the article hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Basic info missing, and layout not per the guidelines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: