Talk:Byron Nelson/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article 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. As many sports related GAs are unmaintained and not improved, I will be providing only a cursory review to begin with. This review will be placed on the talk page and I will notify the wikiprojects involved (not necessarily at the same time). The article will then have seven days from the day of notification for someone to come forward and start making the suggested changes and taking responsibility for the article here. If someone comes forward, I will supply a more detailed review, if someone does not then the article will be delisted. If someone is working on the article then, within reason, there will be no time limit in which the changes have to be made.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is not good, maybe a 4/10. Many sections consist of random unconnected sentences and the rest is no well written.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * At least one reference is improperly formatted.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Almost nothing on the years between 1946 and 2006. Expand and develop proper sections on his life and career during these years.


 * 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:


 * No sign of significant improvement. I'm afraid this article now fails GAR and will be delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)