Talk:Wyatt Earp/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Canpark (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | Generally the article is very well-written, and the paragraphs flow smoothly from one to another. | |
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | The article contains a broad range of references; the online sources are verifiable, and I assume good faith for off-line sources. However, there are places where I believe a citation is needed, so I have added citation tags at the appropriate places so the author could add the relevant references. | |
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | The article is broad, and the various aspects of the subject are covered with good detail. | |
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
Article is stable. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | The photographs are interesting, and it supports the article very well. | |
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. |
- Non-reviewer comment
There are dead external links and dablinks which need fixing via the tools to the top right of this review page. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Adabow's points haven't been addressed yet. I personally wouldn't have been so quick to pass this article as GA. I'm glad more citations were added, but other issues remain. I've fixed the EL-farm and the unnecessary editorializing in the "Further reading" section, but the "popular culture" section is largely unnecessary. If it should exist at all, it should be hugely culled to include only the most notable pop culture representations, converted into prose format, and reliably sourced throughout. The lead also needs expansion per WP:LEAD. I hope that the article continues to improve so that it can proudly display its GA banner. María (habla conmigo) 12:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)