Talk:Walter Woon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC) I will perform this review when I get a chance in the next day or two.

Sorry this took me longer than I expected (both Wiki and non-Wiki work). I'm reviewing it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Overall, this article looks solid.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article's prose is solid. I suggest it needs a little work if you want to take this to FA status, but it's sufficient for GA. I made only a few minor changes in words here and there (""to do law" --> "to study law"), a paragraph break, and a dab link I sorted out. The layout is appropriate per MoS. There is one red link, but it conforms to policy.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All sources check out as live, except [1], which is presented as an external link and infobox website. It is dead. Please update it with a working link or remove it. I'm getting a connection issue on the "Nominated Members of Parliament" links. I'll assume good faith on the offline sources. Some things could use more inline citations, though. For instance, you say his first book was published in 1988, while the source it points to merely says that he's written books. It's a grey area, since the "Selected Works" section lists those books with their publication dates, so I'll probably let that pass. You say he got his master's in 1983, but the source doesn't list a year. That's a minor nitpick as well, but one I'll hold you to. I put a citation needed tag there.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad and focused. Things like the "Speak Mandarin Campaign" are relevant to him in terms of his response.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems pretty NPOV to me.

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):

   I assume there's no freely available image of Woon, which is a shame.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll put this on hold. Just a little bit of work and it'll pass.

All issues addressed. This is a GA. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)