Talk:Tim Vipond/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR   16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "Vipond is a native of Victoria, British Columbia" - link Victoria, British Columbia here
 * The short and stubby sentences of the Career section would benefit from being merged. Can you merge them into one or two paragraphs so that the prose flows better?
 * "After taking time off from his career to earn an MBA" - what is an MBA?
 * "In 2014, while working at Goldcorp, Vipond founded Mathers Pacific Capital Inc., which is based in Vancouver. Mathers Pacific Capital works with Vancouver-area companies to help them raise capital, complete mergers and acquisitions, and grow their businesses." - unsourced
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No original research found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I am a bit concerned over the length and comprehensiveness of this article. At the moment it doesn't meet the "broad in its coverage" criterion. Can an expansion to be made if the are more sources out there? The prose in itself is decent if not short. I'll leave this on hold, but I probably won't be able to pass this if an expansion is impossible. Please let me know if you have any questions. JAG UAR   22:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review and notes! Do you have any suggestions on what precisely to expand on so I can avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight? Appreciate the feedback! Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for the fixes so far! Another thing I would suggest is that the lead would need expanding so it summarises the article per WP:LEAD. I would recommend expanding it by a couple of sentences so that it mentions more of his career. Are there any more sources on him that aren't used in this article? If not, I would just squeeze out all of the information that you can find in the ones you have now. This can become a GA as long as it makes the most of all of the sources available; so I wouldn't worry too much if you can't find anything else. JAG  UAR   16:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As always, appreciate the advice. After doing some more digging, looks like all the RS covering the subject are already included in the article. I've gone through and pulled everything I could from the existing sources to expand the page. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to get this page to GA status. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! After checking through the article again I think it should be safe to promote this. The GA criteria requires an article to make the most out of all of the reliable sources that are out there, and I can see that has been done here. Good work  JAG  UAR   13:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)