Talk:John Updike/GA1

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

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 13, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * Lede does not adequately summarize article, per WP:LEAD.
 * Article overall could use major copyediting and perhaps major restructuring for flow - strongly recommend posting to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects and to WP:GOCE to solicit input and copyediting from previously uninvolved editors.
 * Subsection titles are a bit long, could be more succinct and to the point, and/or split up into separate subsections.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * Large chunks of the article including whole paragraphs in multiple instances lack citations. This basically makes this review a quickfail, unfortunately.
 * What citations there are could use standardizing with WP:CIT.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Seems pretty thorough as far as the structure of subsections - but again this also relates to problems with flow, above, which makes this difficult to analyze.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No real issues jump out here.
 * 5. Article stability? Not noticing any particular major conflicts on inspection of edit history or talk page.
 * 6. Images?:


 * File:John Updike with Bushes new.jpg - Image at Wikimedia Commons, seems okay.
 * File:RabbitAngstrom1.jpg - Appropriate in an article about the book, but not at this article, and should be removed.
 * File:Updike 29.jpg - Are we sure this image is free-use? Seems to need more investigation on the licensing of this one.
 * File:Updikenyrb.gif - Claimed as fair use on three articles, but really this page is the least appropriate claim of all those three.
 * File:Updike Simpsons.png - Not sure if this is necessitated when it isn't really discussed in any depth, and the discussion itself is not even sourced.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)