Talk:David Pearce (philosopher)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to fail this, and I will tell you why...

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It seems to follow the five portions of MOS required for a GA
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There seem to be some blogs among the sources. Please read WP:RS.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
This article is not broad in its scope at all. We have a decent summary of his philosophical positions in the lead, and then nothing about his philosophy in the body. It's also not focused. The body of the article only talks about his affiliations, and not his scholarly work. Meanwhile, there's a throwaway line about how he runs a web hosting company. Is this a major part of his work? Does it fit in with his philosophical ideals? I don't know.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
This is a very brief look at the subject, which doesn't allow me to know if his views are considered controversial by anybody. It seems to be a bit on the side of being biased towards him, but I can't be sure with so little information
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It's probably nothing, but at least one claim of a 3RR violation a few days ago.
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):
One image, no caption
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article needs a significant amount of expansion and attention to detail (references inside periods, non-uniform referencing in regards to dates, etc.). Please feel free to renominate this article when ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on how to improve the article! Did you just decide to review it or did someone request it? - Gloriamarie (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]