Talk:Andrew Chan (drug smuggler)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 10:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: four found, three repaired and one tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against 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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is reasonably well written. Complies sufficiently with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #2[2] is attributed to The Daily Telegraph (Australia).

   ref #38[3] is a broken link, just directs to the current front page of the website.

   There is no citation for the subject's date of birth.

   Other sources appear to be RS.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are major problems here. This fails on the criteria of broadness of coverage of the subject. Apart from an un-cited date of birth and mention of Enfield and his employment everything here is about one event, the drug smuggling. Loooking at the other nominated articles most of them contain essentially the same story, told in the same words. A biographical article about a person should cover their life story. This is about one incident, so it fails on this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The content of the article is essentially re-written tabloid journalism, it doesn't maintain an encyclopaedic tone.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears stable.

6. 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):

   The image used claims to be fair use because it is it is a historically significant photo of famous individuals; and Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public. Neither of these are correct - it is a photograph of two men on a balcony. This is neither historically significant nor are the individuals famous, they are convicted felons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   For the reasons mentioned above I am failing this nomination. The issues are so fundamental that they cannot be resolved by mere editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.