Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * This article is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The article complies sufficiently with the MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * There are a number of dead links, shown at {http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=1930_FIFA_World_Cup}; others such as premium Tv and sky ports have moved and redirect to the front page of the web site. I have reformatted several cites which were bare html links. There are others which need converting using citation templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)  ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * { http://www.v-brazil.com/} is not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * The article is broad in scope Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * and focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is stable Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * tagged and licensed Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Captions OK Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days whilst the references are fixed, otherwise OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK looks to be all fixed now, GA status confirmed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days whilst the references are fixed, otherwise OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK looks to be all fixed now, GA status confirmed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)