Talk:Mendy Rudolph/GA1

GA Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prose is far from excellent, probably only a 5/10 in places. Nevertheless, I think it is good enough for GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

This qualifies comfortably but I would be interested in more information about his gambling addiction and the effects on him and his family.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 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):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: