Talk:Clint Watts/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead and infobox;
 * Per WP:LEAD, lead must be summary of the article's body. Please don't present any new information if otherwise needed. I could see 3–4 sentences which can be moved to the boy and summarized in the lead.
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is the summary i.e. already cited in the body, there is no need to cite again the lead
 * Basic information such as date and place of birth is missing. This is very important
 * Basic information such as the date and place of birth including little info about his parents and siblings (if any) must be mentioned.
 * Section 1;
 * Where did he do his schooling?
 * Watts received a bachelor of science degree graduated in sciences from the United States Military Academy
 * from the United States Military Academy? When, in which year?
 * Subsequently he garnered a master of arts after graduating from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in 2005 -> In 2005, he did his master of arts from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies
 * Section 2.1;
 * When was he commissioned?
 * In which rank did he serve as Executive Officer of the Combating Terrorism Center?
 * In which rank was he recruited into the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
 * What are the dates of promotion?
 * Section 2.2;
 * Watts has consulted for the; what is this? This has no meaning. Please check whether it has to be; Watts has been consulted for the
 * Please mention the dates of his service with the FBI, this is critical info
 * Section 2.3;
 * He joined with FPRI in 2011
 * Please follow chronology, he first joined and then became its fellow. So that must come next.
 * Section 3; all good
 * What is presently doing? His work and position
 * 28.9% confidence, violation unlikely.
 * Though the article presents good information about the subject, some of the basic data is missing. Without them, the article hardly meets GA criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Basic info missing, and layout not per the guidelines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Basic info missing, and layout not per the guidelines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Basic info missing, and layout not per the guidelines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)