Talk:Ross Boatman/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is poor, maybe a 6/10.
 * The lead is far too short and does not adequately summarise the article.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The first paragraph on his poker career has no references at all.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is information on the lead that does not appear anywhere else. This should be incorporated into the main text.
 * There is no a lack information on his parentage and childhood, especially when compared with his brother.
 * The section on his poker career is out of date, finishing in 2007, includes a list where it should have readable prose and also has a stray sentence on his personal life, which should be incorporated into a dedicated and properly developed section of its own providing information on his life outside poker.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update this to take into account recent developments and expand to provide more information on his coaching career.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Although this is not a terrible article, it is not up to GA standards and no work has been done. Therefore this article is no longer a GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)