Revision as of 01:23, 8 April 2007 editĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc (talk | contribs)33 edits →Good Article review (fail)← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:24, 8 April 2007 edit undoĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc (talk | contribs)33 edits →Good Article review (fail)Next edit → | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
5. '''Stable'''. Yes. Not to be held against it that protection against vandals has been warranted.<br /> | 5. '''Stable'''. Yes. Not to be held against it that protection against vandals has been warranted.<br /> | ||
6. '''Images'''. One image not showing the face. At least have a face image in the lead before you go for Good Article. <br /> | 6. '''Images'''. One image not showing the face. At least have a face image in the lead before you go for Good Article. <br /> | ||
'''Recommendations''': Note and address the above. Join the article to a Wikiproject and seek rating assessment from a peer under it, or go for ''peer review''. Be imitating the structure, style and content of ] or at least ]. In socialism, ] 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC) | '''Recommendations''': Note and address the above. Join the article to a Wikiproject and seek rating assessment from a peer under it, or go for ''peer review''. Be imitating the structure, style and content of ] or at least ].<br /> In socialism, ] 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:24, 8 April 2007
Katsuhiko Nakajima is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-03-26 Please use the This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
An entry from Katsuhiko Nakajima appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 19 March, 2007. |
Good Article review (fail)
First see George Washington as an example of a current Good Article.
1. Well written. Comprehensible English expression. Too much red text. The narrative isn't cogent or compelling. I see a lawyers list of dates developing in the latter half of the 'career' section.
2. Accurate and verifiable. Yes. There are 29 references, appropriate to the size of the article.
3. Broad. No. No details of his personal life are given. Is he married? Does he have kids? What's known about the side of his life outside the ring?
4. Neutral. Yes. But in lead refer to his famed opponents as 'famed opponents', 'fabled performer','famed performer', or 'leading contenders', not 'legends'.
5. Stable. Yes. Not to be held against it that protection against vandals has been warranted.
6. Images. One image not showing the face. At least have a face image in the lead before you go for Good Article.
Recommendations: Note and address the above. Join the article to a Wikiproject and seek rating assessment from a peer under it, or go for peer review. Be imitating the structure, style and content of George Washington or at least Hulk Hogan.
In socialism, ĐộclậpTudoHạnhphúc 01:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)