Talk:James L. Buie/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 26, 2022, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
Passed - 2. Verifiable?:
Not sure. - 3. Broad in coverage?:
Failed - 4. Neutral point of view?: Failed
- 5. Stable?: Passed
- 6. Images?: Passed
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.
Comments: I don't think this article is ready for GA review. I suggest quick-fail because it is a long way from meeting criteria 3 ("Broad in its coverage"). The notability of the subject in-context of the history of computing is not established effectively in the lead or body, and the article sections also need some combining/cleanup. "Innovations and inventions" may not satisfy NPOV for notability. I did not check references for accuracy. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)