Talk:Danny Lendich

Danny Lendich has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 25, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Motorsport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Pass - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danny Lendich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Bagging a spot now. Review will be forthcoming. Pinging voorts. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've now just seen voorts's talk page notice. I will pick up the review again after the 22nd, when he is available again. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Tim O'Doherty: I'm back. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Voorts - Alright. I'm a bit busy today; I'll finish the review tomorrow. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Voorts - Resuming review now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Prose is fine after brief copyedit. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): ~~Ref 5 has a maintenance tag, will need fixing before pass.~~Looks done now. b (citations to reliable sources): All of the sources look reliable enough. c (OR): ~~Will do a spotcheck later.~~ Verified refs. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig gives 2.0%, no worries there. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Neutral. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Stable. 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): Licencing looks good, as do the captions.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Add topic