Talk:Lee H. Letts/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Needs a copyedit/rewrite


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Contains self-referencing


 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Needs a reorganization and major cut of reviews, especially in the lead


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Contains POV


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm quick failing this as the issues with it are too numerous to put this on hold. Unfortunately this isn't even close to GA. I strongly suggest you view existing good articles and the good article criteria. The lead doesn't summarize the article, it contains examples of POV such as "beauty" and self-referencing to wikipedia and is poorly-structured and researched in the body.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)