Talk:Average Joe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Average Joe article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Average Joe, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Average Joe (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article 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 review.

[edit] GA Nomination: Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Overall, I believe the article is extremely well written, and well sourced. It was a pleasure to review. I declare this GA nomination as passed. Keep up the excellent work! Kyra_~(talk) 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this page is listed as controversial- from the history of the page it seems that the controversial template was included as a result of a copy/paste error. I'm revoving the template for this rason. Bestchai 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) bestchai

Yes it was pasted from another article. Thanks for your efforts! Signature^brendel 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)