Talk:Paul G. Goebel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Paul G. Goebel has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 6, 2008.
March 3, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	College football Portal Paul G. Goebel is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments This article has been rated for quality but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Paul G. Goebel is part of WikiProject Michigan, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Michigan.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Good Article Nomination

I have reviewed this article. The result was on hold.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This should be <blockquote>d. This needs more information. Instead of 'one article noted', say 'one article in the Bismark Tribune noted' and give the reporter's name if available. Y Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Everything needs referencing. Yes, I know 'Ford won the election' but you still need to add a reference to it. On the whole the referencing is OK, but this is good article nomination. Y Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The headings are a little long in some areas.

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):

   The second picture (i.e. the one not in the infobox) might need a better caption. Maybe cite the source (e.g. taken in 19xx at y by z). --- The second photo is taken from the Wiki Commons and does not have info on the photographer, but I have revised the caption. Y Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Littleteddy (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the reviewer for this article, but I just wanted to mention one small problem that stood out to me. The "Other civic and political roles" could use a little work. The first sentence uses several semicolons incorrectly and I think it would be better written as several sentences. I'll leave it for the main editor to decide, as I have not contributed to this article and don't want to mess with formatting. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

YPassed. If the nominator could please add to the list of GAs... I'm due to be on a flight shortly and I don't have time. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)