Talk:Brian Halligan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * 1) The article has a very short lead and would require expansion.
 * 2) The 'See Also' section would have to be wikilinks only, not prose.
 * 3) When I saw the last 4 sections, I actually got confused. I am going to change it to how it should be, in simple terms, if you agree.
 * 4) Ask me questions if you need to.

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! As for your point #3 (4 sections) I tried to follow the example in the MoS esp. WP:FOOTERS. I revived the dead link. I'll come back to the other points this weekend. Thanks again. Woz2 (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you were following this picture:
 * Wikipedia layout sample medium.png
 * In that, they mean to have that layout, except expanded sections. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I expanded the lead and the body text and added several new references from reliable sources like the The Boston Globe, MIT, Ernst & Young, etc. How is it now? Getting there? Woz2 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is getting there, but the lede still needs to be expanded! It would need at least two paragraphs to make a fine lede.
 * 'Corporate and non-profit organization governance' is only one sentence, could that be expanded, or at least merged then with another section. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks again. How is it now? Woz2 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting better, but is there any more potential sections, if not then, I will have no other choice but to pass. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a cite for the revenue. When you say "more sections" do you mean divide the existing content into more sections? Or that the article is too short (i.e that it needs both more content and more sections)? If the latter, how much longer (50% 2x, 3x) roughly? I looked in the GAN criteria and the MoS and couldn't find any guidence on overall length. Any pointers? Woz2 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in this area, so I would not know how much content is available on him,, so, when I say, "More potential sections", I mean, are there any more sections that could be added. So, are there any more potential sections? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It covers all the aspects I'm aware of. I looked at the GA criteria namely:
 * Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;(note 4) and
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * (note 4) This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
 * ...and I believe this article in its present state meets that standard. Thanks again. Woz2 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I was just asking is there anything more that could be put in there as per 3a. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

PASSED &mdash; Well done on bringing this article to be a Good Article! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)