Talk:Mike Bullen/GA1

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

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of August 31, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Written in clear and understandable language.
 * 2. Factually accurate?:


 * Duly cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources.
 * Please break apart the References section into separate Notes and References subsections.
 * Do we really need all those long quotes within the cited References? They could probably be removed, WP:V is satisfied without them.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Adequately covers various aspects of the individual's life and career.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in a neutrally worded manner.
 * 5. Article stability? Article is stable. No evidence of any conflict in the edit history or on the talk page.
 * 6. Images?: No images. Would be nice to have some, but without any there is nothing to critique here.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Divided by years?
Why is the story of Mr. Bullen's life divided up into sections of 2 to 3 years each? There do not seem to be notable events that mark changes in his life, as far as I can see unless I am missing something. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)