Talk:Howie Day/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) 01:55, 2 September 2009 (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 September 12, 2009, 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):

   One instance of weasel words which has been tagged. The lead does not fully summarise the artcile which it should, see WP:MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I found three dead links which gave been tagged. The referencing style used is not consistent leading to inconsistencies in reference numbering. I have also placed a tag for a section that needs referencing - early life, piano lessons. howiefan.com is not a reliable source; ref #2 (the first one needs to be more specific than just the base url;

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:

   On hold for above issues to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   AS no attempt has been made to address any of these points I am delisting this article. The notice at the top states how you can challenge this decision, or if it is improved it can be re-nominated. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)