Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Usain Bolt/1

Usain Bolt

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Keep per consensus below (comprehensiveness is not a GA criterion). Geometry guy 20:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The prose in the article is horrid, especially in the Lead, the tense is not uniform certain words are repeated, words like says and said are more Simple English than standard English. The lead is one of the most important parts to assess in a GA or FA Review, it's a foundation, it is important because it's the first thing people read and if it is poorly written and not as informative then it's not worth reading.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  12:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you give some examples of the "horrid" prose? I disagree that there is a problem with "said" or "says" (see WP:SAY for more on this). I read somewhere else (possibly one of Tony1's writing guides) that readers don't tend to notice said, whereas other words we use to try to make it sound more interesting, stand out too much. Either way, that's more of an issue for the "brilliant prose" of WP:FA. Also, if you're meaning that "said" and "says" (last paragraph of lead) aren't the same tense, it's actually "has said" and "says", which are both past tense. I think that the main problem with the (recently added) paragraph about Bolt's future plans is that it is not mentioned later on, and may not be of great enough importance to include in the lead anyway. It would perhaps be better to move it down into the main body of the article.-- Beloved Freak  18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I was skimming through the article, it was primarily the lead. I'll post these issues later. Right now I'm fixing up issues with the other GAR.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  00:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems it was only the lead, however, some paragraphs are cited from what are now dead links.  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  00:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the prose could be improved, but it is clear enough for GA criteria.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When did he stop playing cricket? Does he still now ?  Aaroncrick  TALK 07:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No major problems with article. It is GA criteria.Philipmj24 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's always worth checking the history before the nomination. I rewrote the lead a few weeks ago as people had introduced a number of duplications and inaccuracies. The speculative footballer discussion was added to the lead since then (as well as a misplaced note about his first lost to Tyson Gay in the recognition section being deleted). Feel free to smooth out any remaining kinks in the prose. I think it is still around GA standard, but I would likely be biased in that opinion! I'm planning to reduce the article size through the use of a sub-article at some point in the future. SFB 11:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist – Not comprehensive. Nothing on his running style. What's his strengths and weaknesses?  Aaroncrick  TALK 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - since we are not talking about FA?, the article appears to be well above the threshold set by GA? The lead is now in good shape, and discussion on strengths and weaknesses would be necessary for FA, but not required by a GA (jokingly speaking, strengths: broke the world record; weaknesses: did not break the world record by more than a record margin). Nergaal (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)