Talk:Jacob Rees-Mogg/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|No|The article is a minefield, with structural issues; notably honours have been placed as a sub-set of ones private life, this is certainly the general view, nor would coats of arms be regarded as a mater on ones private life. There is inconsistent use of British and American English, often within the same sentence. It is regularly made ambiguous by the excessive quoting and "micro-quoting." This is worsened by an unsatisfactory level of grammar.

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|No|This article does not appear to have regard for the Manual of Style.

}}

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:

{{GATable/item|2a|Neu|While I may be mistaken, I do not believe this to be the case. See the criticisms stated below, while they exist it is hard to determine the true nature of the overall citation and to attribute the gap to one single point. As such I have attributed a neutral status to point 2 (a), this is because until the article is sourced fully it is unclear. As I stated at the beginning I have strong reasons (The lack of citation in crucial areas, and the call for more reliable sources on the page being just two) to believe that this article is insufficiently sourced, with that in mind there are some 211 source. I feel that some of these if used properly would cover some of the gaps in citation. I therefore conclude that point 2.a on its own is not a major problem, only when added to 2.b, 2.c and or 2.d does it become a serious concern.

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|No|While some of the sources are reputable, many are not, to the extent that much of this article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; this fact is highlighted by the call throughout the article for more sources, or better sources. This is amplified by the repetitive use of self published sources among others, and sentences using a source which does not relate to contentious material.

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|No|While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial speculation and areas lacking reliable sources.

}}

{{GATable/item|2d|No|While it may not, the lack of clear citation gives reason to believe that it may contain substantial plagiarism and copyright violations or speculation.

}}

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|Yes|This article sufficiently addresses the main aspects of Mr Rees-Moggs life and career.

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|No|There is a clear lack of cohesion within the article, which undermines the content as many of the same points are repeated three or four times, which has resulted in the article being longer than necessary, furthermore the way it has been outlined is detrimental to the subject as it further exasperates these issues.

}}

{{GATable/item|4|Hold|With the citation in such disarray to attempt to objectively determine the neutrality of the article would be foolish.

}}

{{GATable/item|5|Yes|This article does not currently appear stable, I am aware that at the moment one would expect greater activity then many, although reading through the history, shows much to and throwing, I am also aware that there is currently a partial protection on the article. While it may not get better, I am of the opinion that it would be stable in the long term.

}}

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|Yes|The photographs are tagged as required

}}

{{GATable/item|6b|neu|The relevance of some of the photos is unclear, there are remarkably few containing Mr Rees-Mogg. The captions are accurate and informative in each given case.

}}

{{GATable/item|7|No|At this time, the article requires too many amendments to be brought to a state that would qualify as a good article. I wish you luck in your future endeavours, and hope to see this article back here, when these have been rectified.

}}