Talk:Katherine Reutter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC) –Grondemar 04:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw as reviewer. I don't think I can fairly assess whether such a short article meets the GA criteria. I would never list it, but that doesn't mean that's the right decision. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Working I'll pick this up. I'll attempt to complete the review in the next few days. –Grondemar 04:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article, and have the following concerns I'd like to see addressed before I pass it as a good article:

• A couple of the references are deadlinks. Could you either repair them or find a new source? I'd also accept a reference to the original newspaper if you can determine the section and page.
• It may be a good idea, to prevent future deadlinks, to archive the web-accessible references. I recommend WebCite. Note this isn't required to pass, however.
• It would be nice to have a photo of her for the article. I noticed that she had an email address on the linked website; could you try contacting her and seeing if she would be willing to freely license a photo we could use?

Note I'm not particularly concerned with the length of the article; it's short but appears to cover all needed information, and is comparable to other Good Articles on Olympic athletes such as Carmelo Camet.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article will be on hold for a minimum of seven days to allow the above concerns to be addressed.

Thank you. –Grondemar 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your review. I've replaced the dead links. The references I added to her personal life section covers 2005-2007 well so I think those are good enough. I also added a website that lists all her sponsors. Thanks for pointing out that tool, I will definitely used that for my future edits. I just sent an e-mail to Katherine Reutter so I'm hoping to get a response from her soon. I already checked Flickr and nothing was available. I think I've addressed all your concerns. If I missed something, please tell me. Thank you.Philipmj24 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing I noticed with the way you added the new references: when using WebCite with {{cite news}}, you want to keep the original URL in the "url=" field, and place the WebCite URL in the "archiveurl=" field. You also want to add the "archivedate=" property, which is when you uploaded the webpage in the WebCite archive. For examples of how this would look like filled out, you can look at 2009 International Bowl, an article I recently got passed as a Featured Article. You can see all the references by clicking the Edit button on the References section, since I used list-defined references.

With the assumption that this last minor thing will be corrected, I'm going to go ahead and pass this article as a Good Article. Congratulations! –Grondemar 02:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man! Just corrected that minor thing (if I missed something please tell me). Again, thanks for that website reference, it's going to change the way I edit Wikipedia from now on!Philipmj24 (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)