Talk:Frank Sandford/GA1

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

1 It is reasonably well written.
 * 1) a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Article needs an infobox, suggest Template:Infobox_ReligiousBio. The prose style could be much improved by becoming less chatty and more neutral. I am not happy with the subheadings Stepping out on faith and The scattering, they seem to indicate a lack of NPOV. I would suggest a good re-read of WP:MOS and associated articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

2 It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3 It is broad in its coverage. 4 It follows the neutral point of view policy. 5 It is stable. 6 It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. 7 Overall:
 * 1) a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I am unable to determine if the references are accurate as I have none of the books. One web link, reference #87  is broken, a new source needs to be found.  The Internet archive may help.  It appears that the article contains no original research. The Books cited need ISBNs, the Thesis needs an OCLI identifier. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is broad in coverage and remains focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Fair representation without bias:
 * I do not believe that the article maintains a wholly WP:NPOV. Many phrases seem to be weasel words.  Examples:  the manner in which the money and volunteer labor was provided by supporters was nearly miraculous in any case, was obviously more mellifluous than, Inevitably Sandford encountered opposition., Almost before they knew what was happening, men began to fall victim to scurvy  These are not neutral phrases.  There are many more examples. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article appears to be stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 4 of the five images are from website or are photographs of an image in a book thus fail Wikipedia and Wiki Commons requirements. They have been tagged for deletion in Wiki Commons.
 * Pass/Fail:

On hold until above concerns met. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC) I'm content with that decision. Better to have a well-sourced, well-written article such as this one, "chatty" though it may be be, than to be concerned about a GA rating. I'll leave technical improvements to others who may be interested in that sort of thing. Once the images are deleted, I propose this article be eliminated from consideration for GA status.--John Foxe (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have failed the article for its debatable writing style and lack of images. The reviewer has checked none of the paper sources, and it might be argued that if the images did not meet Wikipedia requirements, the citations are likely inaccurate as well.--John Foxe (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm, actually it is up to the first reviewing editor to pass or fail, I have invited the nominating editor to respond here and they have 7 days to work on improvemnets. I am reverting your action. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not heard from original nominator, improvements have been made images have been removed or replaced satisfactorily. The prose style is still not WP:NPOV.  Some of the recently introduced references may not be WP:RS, assume WP:AGF for others.  Overall conclusion - FAIL. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)