Talk:Michael Schumacher/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article is in general a very good piece of work, but there is an issue that needs to be addressed.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- The prose is OK, perhaps 6.5/10. The sections on "honours" and his life off track are a bit messy and could use tidying up and organising into properly developed paragraphs.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- Problems. I see several [citation needed] tags that should be addressed and there are a number of intext links (like this: [1]) that have to each be assessed for reliability and then properly converted into a full reference.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll work on the references section this afternoon, if no one beats me to it :) Schumi555 (talk)
- I've corrected the intext links, but there are still four '[citation needed]' tags that I cannot find references for. Maybe we should remove this information if references cannot be found? Schumi555 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've referenced three of the bits that had "fact" tags, and hidden one other bit that had a "fact" tag. No fact tags are left. D.M.N. (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good work, I think this article can now have its GA status confirmed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good work, I think this article can now have its GA status confirmed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've referenced three of the bits that had "fact" tags, and hidden one other bit that had a "fact" tag. No fact tags are left. D.M.N. (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've corrected the intext links, but there are still four '[citation needed]' tags that I cannot find references for. Maybe we should remove this information if references cannot be found? Schumi555 (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)