Talk:Assembly of the Poor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I aim to post a substantive review within 48 hours. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is very poor, almost illiterate in parts. Some examples:

   While it is in alliance with NGOs and a political voice for villagers, the Assembly of the Poor when it first began was accused off dismantling Thailand unity and the democratic principles from Thailand ideologies that had not been altered.

   Among the group's co-founders was Vanida Tantiwittayapitak. She was among the student activists at Thammasat University. She fled from Bangkok to the countryside after the brutal massacre of students during a right-wing coup. She became a leader of the Pak Mun fight in the 1990s. She died of breast cancer at age 52 on December 6, 2007 This tells us almostnothing, just a list of facts.

   During the 1950's Thailand's development agenda was at the forefront of the government.

   The World Bank supported the agenda. The rapid industrialization around the world was the driving force.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Large amounst of cut and past or close paraphrase from http://rsmag.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/claimsto200802.html

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, poor prose and copyright violations make this a quick fail.