 | Jordan Eberle was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
| 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 is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan Eberle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well done.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
Reference 17 needs to be properly formatted. Ref. 32 needs an accessdate. Also, Ref. 42 is a dead link.
- 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:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Not that much to do! If the concerns above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and taken care of those problems with the references. Thanks for the review! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome for it, just doing my part. Thank you to Orlandkurtenbach 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) 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
GAR review
editThe 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.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The article hasn't been maintained to standards after the 2010 GA, and does not meet the broadness criterion for his career afterwards. Has been marked for possible reassessment since 2021. Not quite a GA issue, but the article is full of WP:Proseline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delist on lack of detail since 2011. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Dare I say that proseline falls under 1a. Steelkamp (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
- Femke, I believe I have brought this article back up to GA condition. Could you possibly re-review it? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's great, thanks for your work! Unfortunately I don't have the time to review. If you believe it meets the criteria, you can nominate the article at WP:GAN. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)