Talk:Pier Gerlofs Donia/GA2

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I think you have a duplicated external link (the Brad and Kathy one), as the first link appears to be the same as the sixth one.
   • All websites that are not in English need to be marked as such (most are, but some aren't).
   • The See Also section goes before the references section
   • I have not done a complete check of the prose, due to the referencing concerns I have.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Wikianswers (current ref 24) is not a reliable source, and needs to be replaced.
   • There a several places that need references:

   • The last half-sentence of the Early life and family section
   • The last two paragraphs of the Reasons for going to battle section
   • The first two paragraphs of the Band of warriors section
   • The sentence in the Band of Warriors section attributing the "Better dead than slave" slogan to him.
   • The last two sentences of the Superhuman strength and size section
   • The Fiveval, Television, and Sport subsections of the In popular culture section.

   • All of your references should be formatted the same way - either use templates for all of them or for none. (I'd prefer that you use templates, but the decision is up to you).
   • Web references must have publishers and access dates.

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:

There are some serious issues with the referencing of this article that must be rectified before the article can be passed to GA status. As I have stated above, I have not done a complete check of the prose, due to the referencing concerns I have, and so once I see that work is being done on the issues noted above, I will begin a check of the prose. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow time to address these concerns. Let me know here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question on my talk page, I still have serious concerns about the referencing of this article. Locations that need references include the last two paragraphs of the Reasons for Going to Battle section, the last half of the second paragraph of the Band of warriors section, the slogan in the same section, the entire Fiveval section, and the entire sport section - almost all the same spots I pointed out in my review above. The Wikianswers reference is unreliable and must be replaced, as is the new IMDB ref (not to mention it doesn't back up what is being said in the paragraph it is supposedly referencing, and instead only backs up the fact that he was present in a Dutch TV series during the 70s). Non-English references need to be listed as such, and you've still got a duplicated link. Please closely read my comments above and try to correct all of them. If I were to make a decision on the current version of the article, it would fail GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been much editing done since then. I think it will pass now, Dan Boomer, I really do. You see, it just is very good. The prose has been improved by the Rambling man, Greame Bartlett and the Bold Guy have referenced it and User talk:Jimbo Wales has proof read it. I am pretty sure you'll pass this to GA now, won't you? Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just a quick comment, as I need to run off to class, but all of your new web references need to be properly formatted. They need titles (which should be the link to the website, rather than having a bare link), as well as publishers and access dates. Another thing is that there are still a couple of spots that need references (or to be removed, if they cannot be verified). Basically, look through the article, and any time a paragraph doesn't have a reference at the end, it needs one. Direct quotes (such as the block quote in the Fiveval section) need a ref directly after them, as well. References in languages other than English need to have a note saying that. I see you've put this on some of them, but not all. I will take a full run through the article later today and post any more comments that I have, as well as passing the article if I feel that it has reached that point. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And following up: The above comments are pretty much all that needs to be done. Once I see the refs formatted and the final couple of spots referenced, I think this article should be good to go. I will be working on a copyedit of the article today, as there are a couple of prose things that I saw on a quick read-through, but I didn't see anything major. Dana boomer (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears that two of the main editors of this article have been indef blocked for sock puppetry. However, other users have since been working on this article. Are any of you willing to take over prepping this article for GA? There is not much left to do, simply some reference formatting and gathering references for a couple of sections. Drop me a note here if you wish to take over the article. I'll leave this open for a day or so, and if no-one responds, I will have to fail the review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article's nomination for GA status. The references at the moment are the main problem preventing this article from passing. Besides a couple of places missing citations, and some reference formatting needs, there is also the matter of reference reliability. I cannot read Dutch, and so I cannot confirm that all of the newly added Dutch references are reliable. From the look of some of the websites, I have my doubts, but since I cannot understand the language, I do not have proof. I would ask any editor that picks this article up in the future to look closely at the Dutch references to make sure that they meet Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. Dana boomer (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)