Talk:Eugene Landy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Comment. ~~This Review is On Hold until the issue pointed out by the citation needed template - "He frequently employed Gestalt therapy in his treatment technique" - sourced.~~ Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
What a sad sad story - well-written article, lays out all the facts. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Ref #8/(Obituary)independent.co.uk has gone dead.

There is a "citation needed" template. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovetopaint: The unsourced statement should be removed completely. Ref #2/the obituary from The Independent has gone dead. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovetopaint: The obituary from The Independent has gone stale. It must be removed - surely there is another Landy obituary you could use. Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you hide the Gestalt therapy statement? It should either be removed completely or sourced & kept. Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool - no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Not a hatchet job/attack page, sticks to the facts about this individual. Shearonink (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit-warring. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~This Review is On Hold until the above issues are corrected/adjusted.~~ Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - it's a GA, all the various issues raised in the course of this Review have been adjusted/corrected. Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the ref suggestion - sorry - and addressed all the issues raised. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]