Talk:Bruce Hornsby/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 22, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The section Skaggs & Hornsby/The Bruce Hornsby Trio (2007-present) could do with rewriting and incorporating single sentences into paragraphs. Family details and film scores etc need referencing or omitting.

   There are a number of single sentences throughout, possibly as a result of various additions by different editors. The prose throughout could do with a thorough overall copy-edit, and some re-organisation.

   The lead does not fully summarise the artcile as per WP:LEAD

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Dulcimer is wikilinked to a disambiguation page, need to clarify which type of dulcimer he plays - or perhaps both?

   ref #9 [1] doesn't look like a reliable source to me.

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:

   I recommend a thorough copy edit and consolidation of additions by various editors into a more coherent whole. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

   It is now over seven days and only one edit has been made to the article, which was not in response to the review. I notified major contributors and projects, so as no one is interested I shall de-list this now. It can be brought back to WP:GAN when the issues above have been addressed. If anyone disagrees with this re-assessment, please take it to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)