Talk:Rodney Marsh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I will review this article. C679 14:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

The article appears thorough enough but is completely dependent on the subject's autobiography and needs to be re-written with a greater deal of independent sources.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   fails 2a per WP:GENREF, 2b per WP:SELFPUB - may be used as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources" - discounting the autobiography, the sum total of references about his playing career is four, at least one of which (football-england.com) is of questionable reliability. Looking at the article's edit history it also appears that a certain Rod Marsh (talk · contribs) has been contributing material, which has then been referenced later (by another user) using the autobiography.

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Per WP:GACR, "If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold." I feel that criteria 2b is a long way from being met and am therefore closing this review with immediate effect.