Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
August 9,
2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (
MoS):
- I have made some minor copy-edits, further work needs to be done; An officer on duty at Scotia Road, referred to as 'Tango Ten' in some reports on the incident, and as 'Frank' in Stockwell One,[clarification needed] - this needs looking at, ie clarifying; At some point Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10: 00 a.m., It is either at some point ( a phrase over-used in the article) or 10:00am; Several days after the discovery of the mistaken shooting is rather clumsy phrasing; Result of CPS investigation: The family of Menezes are appealing against that decision in the High Court. is that case not concluded yet?; There are a number of instances of statement such as he family campaign has organised three events in 2005:. It is now 2009, tehse need to be rewritten; Ticket barrier: The Menezes' family were briefed by the police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and may have used a Travelcard to pass through; this was subsequently confirmed by CCTV recordings shown at the Metropolitan Police trial & CCTV footage made available to the press following the criminal prosecution of the police show him passing through the barrier normally using his pre-paid Oyster card - please reconcile -travelcard or oystercard?; The Lead at five paras is too long, should be a concise summary of the article.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to
reliable sources): c (
OR):
- A number of websites and documents are directly linked in the text rather than being cited as references; I fixed a large number of dead links and redirects also tagged dead links for which I could find no archive. I used WP:CHECKLINKS for this. All surviving references seem OK.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Thisd artcile needs a lot of work to reach GA status. A large number of references will need to be sought out and I suggest that the entire article needs a through copy-edit for consistency, clarity. There is an element of repetition in parts, the elad needs condensing. I shall delist. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR or the above issues may be addressed and the artcile can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
In order to uphold the quality of
Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the
GA criteria as part of the
GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
August 9,
2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from
WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at
WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at
WP:GAR.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (
MoS):
- I have made some minor copy-edits, further work needs to be done; An officer on duty at Scotia Road, referred to as 'Tango Ten' in some reports on the incident, and as 'Frank' in Stockwell One,[clarification needed] - this needs looking at, ie clarifying; At some point Menezes entered the Tube station at about 10: 00 a.m., It is either at some point ( a phrase over-used in the article) or 10:00am; Several days after the discovery of the mistaken shooting is rather clumsy phrasing; Result of CPS investigation: The family of Menezes are appealing against that decision in the High Court. is that case not concluded yet?; There are a number of instances of statement such as he family campaign has organised three events in 2005:. It is now 2009, tehse need to be rewritten; Ticket barrier: The Menezes' family were briefed by the police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and may have used a Travelcard to pass through; this was subsequently confirmed by CCTV recordings shown at the Metropolitan Police trial & CCTV footage made available to the press following the criminal prosecution of the police show him passing through the barrier normally using his pre-paid Oyster card - please reconcile -travelcard or oystercard?; The Lead at five paras is too long, should be a concise summary of the article.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and
verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to
reliable sources): c (
OR):
- A number of websites and documents are directly linked in the text rather than being cited as references; I fixed a large number of dead links and redirects also tagged dead links for which I could find no archive. I used WP:CHECKLINKS for this. All surviving references seem OK.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- 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):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Thisd artcile needs a lot of work to reach GA status. A large number of references will need to be sought out and I suggest that the entire article needs a through copy-edit for consistency, clarity. There is an element of repetition in parts, the elad needs condensing. I shall delist. This decision may be challenged at WP:GAR or the above issues may be addressed and the artcile can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)