Talk:Mike Mondo/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: no disambiguations found

Link rot: one dead link tagged (ref #3 is a blank page

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose meets the "reasonably good" standard and the article complies sufficiently with the MoS.
 * Personal life: teh sentences need to be consolidated into one paragraph.
 * I made few copy edits, mostly for spelling.
 * Combined paragraph. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * As mentioned above ref #3 [the rap sheet) is just a blank page. This presents a problem for the citation about his arrest and bail. that statement absolutely has to be cited.
 * It seems as though his record has been clean. I made a search and didn't find anything. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it can't be sourced that statement needs to be removed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let Nici decide on that, since she expanded the article. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, I did email Nici, who it appears is away from Wikipedia for a while. I am going to comment out that sentence as per WP:BLP guidelines.  Then it can be re-added if sources are found.  BLP criteria are quite clear on unsourced contentious material. I have also commented out all instances of . I accept the details about weight and height on good faith.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * References supplied appear to be reliable and support the cited statements. All statements are sufficiently well cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I guess that there isn't much more about his personal life to be found.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * Two images used, both correctly tagged and captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, just a couple of points raised above, on hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, as the contentious unsourced material has been commented out, I am happy to pass this as a Good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just a couple of points raised above, on hold for seven days. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, as the contentious unsourced material has been commented out, I am happy to pass this as a Good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)