Talk:Andreas Thorkildsen/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of 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 there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is not great. 4/10 at best. It will need a copyedit before it is of the quality required from GAs today. Problems include: 1) A tendency to write in prose list form - prose lists are just bullet points converted into sentences and "glued" together. An example is the first paragraph in "Career". These need to be tidied up substantially, with related material placed together and joined up using words like "and" and "but" to form cogent sentences. 2) "In 2001 he moved to Oslo" - always introduce the person, don't use words like "he" at the start of paragraphs. 3) Avoid cliche and simile, i.e. "On the lighter side" 4) Merge short paragraphs together, especially when they associate chronologically. I'd also consider merging some sections (like 2006-2008).
 * The lead is not helpful, failing to adequately introduce the topic. It should be expanded to cover all major aspects of his career in summary form.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Make sure that all references come after puntuation. Otherwise the text breaks up and becomes hard to read.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Referencing is fine.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Personal life section needs expanding (for example, almost all of the second paragraph in 2006 belongs in there). It would be good to see more information on his youth, childhood competition and his modelling career and the media speculation about his relationship with the other athelete to name a few areas.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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) 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 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):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I have tried to address some of the concerns above. Oceanh (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Thankyou, I think th article is now good enough to pass, although I would warn you that there are still some significant problems: the lead is too short, the awards section is messy and there are still a few prose issues. Nevertheless, this article now qualifies for GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)