Talk:Tiësto/GA3

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

The main criteria it fails is sourcing/verfiability. Currently has a lot of broken links, i noted this on talk page a little while ago - have tried to fix but more difficult than normal as the sites originally used seem to be discontinued. Article also has style tag. Tom B (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article has a number of issues as noted above. Specifically as listed below. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Contains too much un-encyclopaedic information. Needs to be completely rewritten in a neutral encyclopaedic style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Seven dead links have been tagged for some time.
 * ref #2, what makes this a reliable source?
 * - Replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #6 is a forum, not RS
 * - Replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #7 is a wordpess blog, not an RS
 * - replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #8 is a tripod.com site, not RS
 * - replaced ASOTMKX (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #9 bebo is not an RS
 * - removed ASOTMKX (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #11, what makes this a reliable source?
 * - removed ASOTMKX (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #12, what makes this a reliable source?
 * - removed ASOTMKX (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #14, no information supporting statement
 * - removed ASOTMKX (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ref #28 Google Answers is not an RS
 * - removed ASOTMKX (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact very few of the references here are RS, so I will delist immediately


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Too much minutiae
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article contains a large amount of fancruft, no critical reception
 * 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):
 * What encyclopaedic content is aded by File:Tiesto at london 02 arena.jpg and File:Olympic flame at opening ceremony.jpg?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quickfail on grounds of a large number of unreliable sources. Note also the outstanding fancruft tag, which has not been addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quickfail on grounds of a large number of unreliable sources. Note also the outstanding fancruft tag, which has not been addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)