Talk:Danny Deever/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No probs with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 20 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.
 * Some page needed tags but not all are needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 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.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Some references to print material have page needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent article, but there is one small problem. Page numbers are needed for reference #3, #4 and #5. Tag have been left by another editor.  I managed to find an online source for reference #6. I am placing the reassessemnt on hold, whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All now directly reffed. I've removed one of the cites, as it seemed to just duplicate material found in another one, and I couldn't find a print copy to confirm. Anything else looks like it needs brought up to spec? Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All OK, now. I am happy to keep at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 21 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):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent article, but there is one small problem. Page numbers are needed for reference #3, #4 and #5. Tag have been left by another editor.  I managed to find an online source for reference #6. I am placing the reassessemnt on hold, whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All now directly reffed. I've removed one of the cites, as it seemed to just duplicate material found in another one, and I couldn't find a print copy to confirm. Anything else looks like it needs brought up to spec? Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All OK, now. I am happy to keep at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent article, but there is one small problem. Page numbers are needed for reference #3, #4 and #5. Tag have been left by another editor.  I managed to find an online source for reference #6. I am placing the reassessemnt on hold, whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All now directly reffed. I've removed one of the cites, as it seemed to just duplicate material found in another one, and I couldn't find a print copy to confirm. Anything else looks like it needs brought up to spec? Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All OK, now. I am happy to keep at GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)