Talk:Mel Charles/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is not reasonably well written. Examples include:
 * John and Mel Charles seemed destined to begin their careers at local club Swansea Town. "seemed destined" is a weasel phrase. As is " the unforgiving waters " and "This proved costly to Swansea,"
 * the other in front of 50,000 rank-soaked Welshmen - "rank-soaked"?
 * This needs copy-editing to improve prose flow and narrative.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All but two of the citations are to a primary source, Charles' autobiography. More secondary sources are needed.
 * What makes {http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wal-recintlp.html} and {http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com/player/melcharles.htm} reliable sources?
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The Swansea City section contains a lot of extraneous material, does not focus on Charles.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Reads somewhat like a fan article.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * stable
 * 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):
 * No images used.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article does not meet the good article criteria at present, get it copy-edited, take to peer review, then consider renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)