Talk:Asinara/GA2
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- This is not reasonably well written. Poor phrasing and word choice abound. The grammar is sub standard throughout. The lead does not fully summarise the article. Solitary sentences abound. Statements are contradictory. Please get it copy edited and then submit to peer review before renominating
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Sources appear to be RS; a clarification needed tag needs addressing; no evidence of OR
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- OK
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Poor word choice implies a point of view in places. this will be sorted out by copy-editing.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Images licensed OK, captions are poorly written.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This is a long way from GA standard and should never have been nominated in this poor state. You are supposed to get the article up to standard and then submit for review. Get it copy edited by someone with a good command of plain good English, then submit for peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: