Talk:2014 Continental Cup of Curling/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- A few comments:
- Citations in the lead are unecessary
- First Paragraph in the "Teams" section lacks a citation.
- Last sentence in the stats section needs a citations
- Seven Dead links
--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Tomandjerry211 (alt), it looks to me that this nominated article has a fundamental flaw: it fails criterion 1b, in that it doesn't comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections. The reason that there are citations in the lead of this article is that the information cited doesn't appear in the body of the article, so the only place to cite it is the only place it appears: the lead. This is a clear violation of the guideline, which states,
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
The bulk of the lead needs to be placed in the body of the article, with the lead pared down so itserves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
Citations in the lead are only appropriate when there is a quote (which must always be cited where it occurs), or if there is a controversial fact (even if cited in the body). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Tomandjerry211 (alt), it looks to me that this nominated article has a fundamental flaw: it fails criterion 1b, in that it doesn't comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections. The reason that there are citations in the lead of this article is that the information cited doesn't appear in the body of the article, so the only place to cite it is the only place it appears: the lead. This is a clear violation of the guideline, which states,
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Over 7 days with no action, so I'll have to fail this. Feel free to renominate anytime.