- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result: Kept Nominator happy with current state of the article AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is choppy and basically a list of his accomplishments (which admittedly, are many). Each section is relatively short and only contains positive information. Many of the references are statistics, lists, or record books. None 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the criteria for a GA are not met in my opinion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Section 6 can't be covered as their is no images for it to go under. Therefore this automatically ticks that section. I do agree though, that their seems to be a lot of short sentences in consecutive sentences with the main problem being in the Background section. HawkAussie (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I worked on the prose a bit to try and make it flow better. Images are not a requirement and we can't add negative stuff if there is none covered in reliable sources so I don't think 4 is an issue unless a good source (taking into account BLP and Weight) is provided. As for broadness, I agree that is an issue. However, again we can only use what the reliable sources give us. Sometimes a short article is all that is possible. @Mnnlaxer and HawkAussie: plus the nominator and original reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your work and I'm fine with passing the article now. Thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]