Talk:Alfred Pullin: Difference between revisions
m Transcluding GA review |
on hold |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA nominee|09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Sarastro1|Sarastro1]] ([[User talk:Sarastro1|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Sports and recreation|status= |
{{GA nominee|09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Sarastro1|Sarastro1]] ([[User talk:Sarastro1|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Sports and recreation|status=on hold|note=}} |
||
{{WikiProject Cricket|class=|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Cricket|class=B|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Journalism}} |
{{WikiProject Journalism}} |
||
Revision as of 21:33, 9 September 2010
Alfred Pullin is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee. Nominated by Sarastro1 (talk) at 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.
|
Cricket B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Journalism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Alfred Pullin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lead
- One minor issue. Do you think it's worth saying Pullin was Welsh/British in the first line?
- Done. Said British rather than Welsh as he had no association with Wales for most of his life. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Early life
- Do you have any further details about Pullin's aborted rugby career or his refereeing?
- No, it was very obscure and not really recorded. Just local stuff. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Also, while this is a moot point regarding the review itself, should this be listed under journalism rather than sport?
- Quite possibly, but I had him down as a sports journalist who was firmly associated with cricket. But on reflection, journalism would have made more sense! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Other than those two issues, this is a smashing, little piece. Brad78 (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- A short and sweet biography. It's very well-written and remains focused. It any further details come to light, it would be great to expand the article. Similarly the article uses few sources at the moment, so maybe that may help to expand it. Finally, there are no images, but that's not a requirement for GA. Brad78 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees currently on hold
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class cricket articles
- Low-importance cricket articles
- B-Class cricket articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Cricket articles
- Unassessed Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles