Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kenwyne Jones/1

Kenwyne Jones

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Kept as GA per unanimous consensus and conformity to WP:WIAGA. PeterSymonds | talk 06:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the article is broad in its coverage or well written. Much of the body of the article, particularly the Southampton and Sunderland sections are a list of facts, rather than a biography. Peanut4 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as GA The key item to remember here is: GA is not FA. Broad in coverage does not equal comprehensiveness, and the article meets the definition of broad by covering the basic arc of the athlete's playing career - which is why he is notable in the first place. I see no lists anywhere in the article. I see a properly verified article written to a GA-class level. VanTucky 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as - I believe this article should be kept as a Good Article because it is comprehensive in its own right, it doesn't go into enough detail for FA, but in my opinion is sufficient for GA. Sunder land 06 03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GA - its really well-written and though it fails FA , it easily passes GA since its well written, well sourced, well structured and well detailed, I see no problem here...--Comet styles 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This more than meets the GA criteria. It is comprehensive, has a good coverage level, and doesn't spread itself too thin. An impressive piece of work, and one I'm happy with as at GA level. Regards, Anthøny 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but work on the prose and check for MoS conformity. Some sections and paragraphs are stubby, and the writing is far from crisp. Despite these issues, the article currently meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]