Talk:Gilbert Perreault/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 a number of issues that need to be addressed.

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

The prose is pretty good, maybe a 7/10.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some referencing problems, I have highlighted the problem areas with tags in the article. The issue here is that a number of statistics are quoted without sources, these need to be addressed in order to verify this information.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd really like to see some information about his personal life: Where was he born and who to; has he ever been married or had children; has he ever appeared in the news for any reason relating to his perosnal life?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 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.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

No images. They aren't essential, but would certainly improve the article substantially.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 again. 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. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Maxim_(talk) 01:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, this definately qualifies now. It could be improved a bit by merging some of the shorter paragraphs into longer ones and expanding the personal life sections a bit. Good job and very fast, impressive.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]