Talk:Andrew Truxal/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Andrew Truxal GA Assessment

I don't find that the article passes it's broad approach for Doctor Truxal. Although it shows his ranks and positions and whatnot, it shows no important events that happened during his administration, what he did, and what he was involved in while he was there. The article does not express the mood and ideal thinking of Truxal and has no recognition whatsoever. Having been an president of the college, I would have though he would have a picture of some sort, or some other type of media if he was such a important individual. Article only has one quote, in which criteria suggest that articles have multiple quotations, statistics, published opinions, or highly controversial speeches. It is a decent article, but I don't think it's worthy of GA status. Plus, nobody has bothered to edit it since late 2008. Renaissancee (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The criteria doesn't say/suggest that it needs to have multiple quotes and statistics; it says that it has sources for any of those that appear in the article. I believe that the article shows plenty of events that he was involved with while there. It talks about the construction of many of the buildings of Hood College and the opening of Anne Aruendel Community College (which I would say is pretty important). There are presumably pictures out there in archives and yearbooks, but nothing that is easily/readily available. "Nobody has bothered to edit it since late 2008" isn't exactly a criteria for GAs... either way (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA articles should be properly maintained at all times, not just take a break for a few months or so. It is a very good article, but it just needs more of everything. If I was assessing this page I'd classify it as "C". It may have been a good article in 2007, but at the present time it needs much work and information. Renaissancee (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What specifically in the criteria does it fail? You haven't cited anything specific so far as I can see. either way (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not convinced that this articles broadness is enough for a GA. The article is well-written and neat, so I have no problem with that. But multiple references cannot be reviewed due to log in by pay-to-use databases. As stated before I would have liked to see some sort of media about Dr. Truxal. Other than that, everything passes criteria. Renaissancee (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some sources cannot be viewed is not an issue here. About 75% of the references used are from newspapers (the Washington Post and New York Times). These are reliable sources. It'd be the same thing if I used a book as a reference. The book isn't available online to all people, and it may not be in your local library, but it still qualifies as a reliable source. His inauguration as president of the college, and his obituary, were both covered by the Post and the Times, each of which are considered two of the premiere newspapers in the United States. I think that provides media "some sort of media about Dr. Truxal." either way (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In media I was referring to pictures, sound clips and movies. Although the criteria does not require GA articles to have pictures, ect. This is one of the few GA articles that do not have any media whatsoever. Renaissancee (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment picked up

It appears that this reassessment has been abandoned by the original reviewer so I will recommence.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I found and cited his birthdate. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The lead could do with a little expansion, so I added a sentence summarizing his legacy. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   • none used

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)