Jump to content

Talk:Graham Fraser

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

untitled

[edit]

Seems like a very long story about one incident is unbalanced for a biography page. Is it because it is about the Olympics and that is a current thing now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Significant one (talkcontribs) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

→Yes. I'm planning on adding more events though, so it will end up being balanced.198.103.182.130 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article Nomination

[edit]

Within the next few weeks, I will nominate this article for good article status. Emass100 (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Graham Fraser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 19:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Earwig's. Although alot of reds are because of names of institutions or books, several sentences are copy-pasted or closely paraphrased, eg. Promotion of Linguistic Duality.The prize is given annually by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to an individual or organization in Canada that is not subject to the federal Official Languages Act, but that makes a difference by promoting linguistic duality in Canada or abroad, or by contributing to the development of official language minority communities. See other instances on the report page.
  • Not enough citations; many paras and claims are uncited: last sentence in "Early life and education", section "Jounalist", 1st para of "2010 Winter Olympics", and section "Family". Also "born", "residence", in infobox unreferenced.
  • Lead is completely inadequate. It should summarize all important aspects of the article.
  • Ref [2] redirects to website's homepage. No access date given, so it is unverifiable.
  • Ref [5] is unverifiable, no link is given. Same with ref [6], [7].
  • Source [19] and infobox say he was Commissioner of Official Languages, but the lead says he is.

At present, the article seems far from GA. The above issues are what I could see from a quick overview. I will fail it, under WP:GAFAIL, for now. When these issues [copyvio fixes, enough citations, lead rewrite, links & access dates for verifiability] are addressed, it can be renominated. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed