Talk:Pat Condell/GA2

GA Review

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

I have decided to review this article. Brambleclawx 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, so I've decided that when reviewing this article, I will fix any minor spelling and grammar issues I come across, but I cannot fix much else without researching, the topic, so it will be up to you to take care of anything that needs fixing. Brambleclawx 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

After some looking, I have my doubts. You have not changed the page significantly, if at all, since it was last failed.

The last nomination resulted in a fail because, as the reviewer pointed out, there are several unreliable sources, Youtube being one. Although I understand that sometimes you have no choice but to cite YouTube for statistics such as view counts, I feel you are in need of some more reliable sources. You have way too many YouTube references.

Pass or Fail:

On the grounds that you have not imporved the article significantly since your last failure, I have decided to quick-fail this nomination.

Suggestion(s)

• Improve the references

Reviewer: Brambleclawx 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)