Talk:Richard Scrushy/GA1

GA Review

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems when checking quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * I made a couple of minor copy-edits
 * b (MoS):
 * Complies sufficiently
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The article is well referenced, reference #78 {http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/05/08/ap6399620.html} is a dead link. Where the same page is referenced, e.g. Matulich, 337, then the cite should be link to the first instance. I changed this for (Jennings 2006: 31) as an example. I am not sure that the subject's name needs a cite as at the top of the artcile. This looks odd.  The references to blog.al.com should make it clear that the work is the Birmingham News.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold whilst the referencing cited above is fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All OK, thanks for your heard work, pass GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold whilst the referencing cited above is fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All OK, thanks for your heard work, pass GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold whilst the referencing cited above is fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All OK, thanks for your heard work, pass GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review, Jezhotwells. I've consolidated the references and removed the dead link (an existing reference contained the same quote and content). I also fixed the typo within the reference to the Birmingham News article that prevented the publisher information from appearing. As for the reference for Scrushy's name, I added this simply because he has gone by several versions of his name. Growing up, Scrushy was known by his middle name, Marin, then dropped Marin and began using Richard. After a few years and quite a bit of success, he added the M back into his title and has since been known as Richard M. Scrushy. Because his middle name is not commonly known, I added a source to guarantee verifiability. Thanks, -- auburn pilot  talk  02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.