Talk:James Fisher Robinson

GA Fail

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I have failed the article on GA status. My reasons are: • The Giant Puffin • 12:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * The article is fairly short and not comprehensive enough
 * The whole article relies on just a few sources
 * Both Early life and Later life and death are particuarly short, and need extending
 * Although his opposition to emancipation is noteworthy enough to be mentioned enough in the introduction, this is not extended upon later on in the article
 * A lack of images besides his portrait, although this isnt crucial, it would help


 * What if this information simply isn't available then? GA was originally created for short articles, and being short isn't a deficiency - depends on the notability of the article. LuciferMorgan 12:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have tried to find additional sources on Robinson (and, for the record, Beriah Magoffin and Thomas E. Bramlette, if anyone knows of any.) There just aren't very many that I'm aware of. Even historian Lowell H. Harrison laments the lack of biographical information available on Kentucky governors in the preface to his work Kentucky Governors, which is cited in this article. Acdixon 13:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As a result of the WP:GA/R review discussion that is now archived at: Good article review/Archive 21, the fail above has been overturned by a consensus decision of 6-0. I will be presently adding this to the list.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment
After reading through the article for GA sweeps, it still meets GA criteria as it did in 07, though it is a little short. Therefore the article remains a GA. Wizardman  03:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)