Talk:Kjell N. Lindgren/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 13, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Lede intro sect of article needs to be expanded, per WP:LEAD, so that it can function fully as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Then, per WP:LEADCITE, we don't need citations in the lede, but we should make sure that the same information appears again, cited, later on in the article's body text. There are a couple sentences that are a bit too long, but overall the writing style is generally pretty good. Other than the WP:LEAD issue, that is.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout -- however I see only one (1) cite for the entire Early life sect, and only two (2) cites for the Career sect. One of these appears to be a PDF that is a primary source. I'd like to see more secondary sources used in this article, and more sources to back up information than just one cite.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:


 * 1) Significant concerns here. I'd expect there to be a great deal more information in secondary sources available about this individual, in order to expand literally all subsections of this article.
 * 2) Example sources at
 * 3) Another search at
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here, article is indeed written in a neutral, matter of fact tone.
 * 5. Stable?: Article appears to be stable, but keep an eye on some random fly-by stray IP edits to check those over from time to time.
 * 6. Images?:


 * File:Astronaut Kjell Lindgren Official Photo.jpg = good image, NASA, checks out okay on image page.
 * File:Expedition 45 'Return of the Jedi' crew poster.jpg = also NASA image, no issues here.

Normally I'd try to put this one as GA on Hold, but I see the GA Nominator has retired, and pledged to not come back to Wikipedia until three thousand (3,000) years from now. So unfortunately I'll mark this one as Not GA at this time.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)