Talk:E. Pauline Johnson/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 10, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Poorly written, clumsy phrasing throughout. Needs a thorough copy-edit. Consider enlisting the help of a member of WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The Lead should summarize the entire article and it nowhere near approaches this. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * We have a mix of citation styles, inline havard style and footnotes. I recommend converting all to footnotes for clarity, using citation templates as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Sources appear to be sufficiently reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * Long section on family history seems excessive. Consider shortening and merging into her own history. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Slight tendency to weasel words at points, should be sorted by thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK as no-one has made any efort to address these issues, I am delisting the article. If you disagree with this decision an appeal can be made at WP:GAR.  Otherwise if the artcile is improved it may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK as no-one has made any efort to address these issues, I am delisting the article. If you disagree with this decision an appeal can be made at WP:GAR.  Otherwise if the artcile is improved it may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK as no-one has made any efort to address these issues, I am delisting the article. If you disagree with this decision an appeal can be made at WP:GAR.  Otherwise if the artcile is improved it may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)