Jump to content

Talk:Michael Plumb/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    I have made a few minor edits which you are free to change.[1]
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    Article lacks any sense of the subject's personality or style, or specifics of his riding abilities.
    I have a suggestion. Since the article is a little dry - no images - nothing about his personality, riding style etc., it would help to give quotes by others about him. e.g. from [2] which has a number of quotes by others (or by him) that give a flavor of his riding style and insight into his effect on others.
    This would also give the article a dimension that is missing: there is no "feel" for the man.
  4. B. Remains focused:
  5. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  6. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  7. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    No images
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  8. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • I will put this review on hold while my suggestion is evaluated.

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Mathew! I am just about to leave the house, but will work on these suggestions when I get back this evening. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Mathew - I have looked over your edits and they look good. Between User:Montanabw and I, I think we have cooked up a paragraph (which I have put in the "Other" section for now) about his personality. Let us know if this was what you had in mind, or if you think there is a better place in the article for this information. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]