Talk:Idi Amin/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) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
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 there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, 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. 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..


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I would suggest that the listing of the Tittybangbang sketch show amounts to trivia. Amin was satirised on lots of TV sketch shows, nothing makes this notable.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I fixed a number of dead links and redirects using WP:CHECKLINKS. Ref #25 is not a RS; ref #27 redirects to the front page of the Telegraph, not the obituray; ref #28 is a personal webapge not RS; ref #29 redirects to the front page of teh Amnesty site, does not support statement; ref #32 is a mission site reproducing artciles; shiould be correctly attributed; ref #47 same as #27; ref #55 the book should be correctly attributed, ISBN, publisher, etc; ref #60 is not a RS
 * ref #4 is to a mission site not an RS, it apparently reproduces newspaper articles - these should be cited correctly; ref #10 [an Palmowski, Dictionary of Contemporary World History: From 1900 to the present day. Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2003 (ISBN 0-19-860539-0)] the page number is not cited; ref #24  is a dead link; ref #25  redirects to the Amnesty front page - does not support statement; ref #28 as ref #4; ref #42  is a dead link; ref #43  redirects to a holding page does not support the information; ref #44, a book, needs a page number; ref #56  is a forum or bulletin board - not a RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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, 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:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be fixed. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the Telegraph ones and the Amnesty one. I am replacing the unreliable ones now. I do think this simply deserved a note on the talkpage rather than all of this bureacracy and tallying. Woody (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done all of your issues now. Note that all of the information for the books is in the "References" section... Regards, Woody (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you don't appreciate that my GA reassessments are made in a consistent fashion. GA reviewers like to use check-lists to make sure that all points are covered and so that editors can see what is going on. I have been through the references again and there are still a number of outstanding issues as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - you are still working on the references. I took the comment Done all of your issues now to mean that you had finished.  No problems, I will come back in a week. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The links meet GA criteria as they are, I just decided to give them a complete workover to give full information. I must apologise for the dead links you just tagged, I did fix them earlier, but I somehow removed them, presumably by editing an old version of the page.
 * In terms of the checklists, I am aware that they are common for GA. But why go through this, creating subpages, getting tallies up on sweeps scoreboards, if all it would have taken was a note on the talkpage saying, you have some dead links, could you fix them? Regards, Woody (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All done now, ready for your review. Woody (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your hard work.  am happy to confirm the article's GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)