Talk:G. Wayne Clough

Good articleG. Wayne Clough has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 13, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed
March 2, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2013Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 25, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:G. Wayne Clough/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 prose is ok
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Ref 53 is dead and a blog (often unreliable)
    Are you referring to the source by Louise Blouin Media? It doesn't appear to be dead, and that company also publishes art magazines and dead-tree books, if that helps. See about us on their site. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Findagrave is usually unreliable, so I suggest you find a better source.
    I replaced it with something from the Washington Post. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 54 accepted in good faith
    It looks like it's by the Los Angeles Times. The author's twitter bio says he is a "Los Angeles Times art critic" so on that basis it seems legitimate to me. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 61 is dead
    Yeah, all of the Georgia Tech organization pages were moved. Hold on a second... fixed. Disavian (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    --GoPTCN 19:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
  7. Overall: Meets criteria :)--GoPTCN 09:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:
Thank you for reviewing this article. I'll have a look at those references. Disavian (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]