Talk:Mark Speight/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Career section, this sentence ---> "They planned to get married in fancy dress", reads awkwardly, if that's the way its supposed to be written, please excuse me, I have somewhat trouble understanding British interpretations.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I noticed that dates in the references are linked and it would be best if they were unliked, per here. The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here. One thing that I don't understand is that in the Death and legacy section, it says that his body was discovered on 13 April, but there's no mention he died on 7 April.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Is icBirmingham a reliable source?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to fail the article, since its a week and a half since the GA review. If the statements above can be addressed, then the article may be renominated for GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above has been addressed (overlinking, red links, death date in last section). icBirmingham is the website of a newspaper, so passes WP:RS. I don't see what wrong with "get[ting] married in fancy dress" (the phrase anyway), could you perhaps explain what the problem is? Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. To me, the sentence is very odd to have, that's what comes from me. But, I guess its alright to have in the section. Thank you to Nev1 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)