Talk:Thomas Forester/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Morningstar and portfolio link to dab pages.
   • The lead is very blunt, and does not introduce the subject; instead it jumps straight to "details" and heads on the main stuff later.
   • No-where in the text is there any indication of what country he comes from.
   • P/E is not understandable, because the first occurrence does not have the abbreviation in brackets.
   • I have not made a full review of the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Not checked.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • There is only an estimate of the year of birth, no place of birth, no information about education, and hardly information about his career prior to the 2000s.
   • The article is dominated by recentism.

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):

   The article is not imaged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article lacks fundamental information expected in a biography article. It is not possible to pass the article as GA without much more content. I will therefore have to fail the article. However, except for the lead, what is there is good. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)