Jump to content

Talk:Gordon Brown/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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

Feel free to help with this

[edit]
Notified: Philip Stevens (talk · contribs), Tpbradbury (talk · contribs), Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), Robin48gx (talk · contribs), Off2riorob (talk · contribs), Viewfinder (talk · contribs), Timrollpickering (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEPT---TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. The article is in really good shape. I have identified the following issues for improvement:
done, Tom B (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not seem to be the case.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix the original ones but a live link means any that are subsequently added to article will show up, Tom B (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about. I am talking about links to the word press.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes someone can fix that and then tomorrow someone else can insert another ambiguous link. When you left your message on 21 June there were 4 ambiguous links including American president, i fixed them but more ambiguous links have been added since i fixed all of them, Tom B (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind fixing the new one that popped up. It is unlikely a new disambiguation link will be added every day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thought i'd replied here but maybe i did it on main talk page. fixed them as you asked including one for geoffrey robinson, i think the disambig tool says - i'm having trouble accessing - there's still an ambiguous robinson link but i can't find it anywhere, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done all but AOL video one, checklinks tool says all Times links are dead but they're not, Tom B (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to spread the images throught the article instead of having them paired up like they are. Done
easily doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not enthused about the image placement, but I can live with it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I have removed one picture, is it better? It is not easy spreading the pictures out andkeeping the pictures relative to the text. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Could the bulleted text be converted to prose. Done
doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the styles section be converted to prose. It could say something like Until YYYY, Brown was referred to as XXX1. Upon completion of his X degree on MM DD, YYYY,[citation #] his title became XXX2. In YYYY, he assumed the title of XXX3 upon such and such occurrence.[citation #] etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all footnotes follow punctuation.
easily doable, anyone can do with peer reviewer tool Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, got it - I hadn't realised refs mid sentence were bad. Fixed now. I'd managed to completely miss the Leonard Figg one, not sure how. Also fixed. Done another "."-search in Firefox, and manually scanned for refs mid sentence. I don't suppose there's a tool to check this stuff? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
doable, Off2riorob should be able to do when unlocked, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to reorganize the paragraph about the children so that it does not look like two stubby paragraphs. Maybe mention the living children first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]
I don't want to micromanage this process, so I accept the efforts that have been made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and that's it! All done. This is the first time I've done WP:ALT text in many a long year, and never on Wikipedia, so if someone could double-check my work I'd appreciate it. I'm still looking for a solution to the infobox portrait issue listed above, too. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the disambiguation checker and the links checker above are showing new problems. I would like to say that at whatever time I approve retention of the quality rating that the links were taken care of. Thus, I would like someone to fix the new problems that have popped up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

' Done Checklinks [[1]] looks ok to me now.  Done also reflinks [[2]]  Done also disambiguation links [[3]] all good.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

thanks, yes i've added some comments. it's pretty good article. as he's become PM since it was promoted it is harder to maintain and proseline tends to get added. i'd only generally demote if you're sure an article is clearly below other GAs, in order to avoid bureaucracy of demotion then repromotion, plus Off2riorob maybe able to make some headway here, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I missed this, I would have liked to help. The article is currently locked down with a little edit dispute over the detail in the lede. When the article is unlocked I would be available to address these small concerns. Off2riorob (talk 21:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes please this would be very good - see comments above. some should be easy to fix like the images and punctuation. the harder thing is to get a neutral, flowing article without loads of one-line paragraphs detailing the latest news, thanks very much i'll come back when i can Tom B (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politician articles are hard because some supporters will try to cover up relevant information that is not completely favorable. Some may even try to get the good article award revoked, as could be the case here (or it is a coincidence)Calmano (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]