Talk:Jeff Hanneman/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Refs #2 and #3 are dead links (tagged); ref #4 is to a blog, not a reliable source (tagged)Y

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just some concerns with the referencing as per above - on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seem to be corrected. I fixed one broken link, and someone else beat me to fixing the second. IainP (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I repaired the two dead links. For the first I was able to locate the original archived interview. For the second I was only able to get a summary, the entire article is pay-per-view. I think we can assume good faith that the article says what is sited since it was added in 2006 and the article was listed as GA in 2007. The info cited to the blog was superfluous and original research so I removed it. If these were the only issues it should be all set. J04n(talk page) 12:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, issues fixed, thanks for the quick response, keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)