Talk:Mel Charles/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) 00:44, 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: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 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 not reasonably well written. Examples include:

   John and Mel Charles seemed destined to begin their careers at local club Swansea Town. "seemed destined" is a weasel phrase. As is " the unforgiving waters " and "This proved costly to Swansea,"

   the other in front of 50,000 rank-soaked Welshmen - "rank-soaked"?

   This needs copy-editing to improve prose flow and narrative.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All but two of the citations are to a primary source, Charles' autobiography. More secondary sources are needed.

   What makes {http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/wal-recintlp.html} and {http://www.neilbrown.newcastlefans.com/player/melcharles.htm} reliable sources?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Swansea City section contains a lot of extraneous material, does not focus on Charles.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Reads somewhat like a fan article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   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):

   No images used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article does not meet the good article criteria at present, get it copy-edited, take to peer review, then consider renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 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.