Talk:Adam Smith/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamesx12345, thank you for bringing this article to the GA review process. Unfortunately, I have decided to fail the nomination for the reasons that I list below. I noticed that you had not edited the article recently, so I suggest that you attempt the revise the article as much as you can before you re-nominate it for GA status.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article relies on too many quotations without explaining their significance. See WP:QUOTEFARM for further advice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Unresolved "citation needed" tag in the section on The Wealth of Nations.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think the "Criticism and Dissent" section should be further developed. Currently it consists mostly of one long quotation.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Please let me know if you have any questions. Edge3 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I am afraid I am guilty of a fly-by nomination, as I came across this article thinking it was quite good and worthy of a nomination, having been improved a lot since it was last reviewed. There are some useful pointers here to be acted on in the future. Regards, Jamesx12345 (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]