Talk:David Beckham/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 that this article has some issues that need to be urgently addressed.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is poor, perhaps 5/10 in places. There is an element of recentism with all the Milan stuff, and there are a number of sections with short sentences stuffed in. These should be rewritten in organised, legible prose.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I see at least one tag and there are a number of places where I'd expect to see references and they are missing, in particular in the Manchester United section.

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) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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:
 * There have been some improvements, but not enough, and it does not seem that anyone is taking responsibility for this article. Therefore I have decided to delist it from GA. Options for appeal are discussed above, although these improvements will have to be made before any appeal has a chance of success.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)