Jump to content

Talk:2023 Greenland landslide/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: 2603:8001:7106:C515:D502:7215:BF7C:2AFD (talk · contribs) 00:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

I'm failing this nomination because the article is lacking breadth and depth and there is too little content. I won't debate how big an article has to be for GAN (if you're using a mac, and the prose doesn't fill half the screen area, that's probably too short). One of the shortest GAs I've reviewed, 1764 Woldegk tornado, has sufficient coverage despite a prose word count of ~500. Infobox is missing. Lede is too short. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]