Talk:British Library/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey there, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Miscellaneous" sections are discouraged by WP:Trivia. The material should be incorporated into the text or discarded
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs
Per WP:MoS, external links should not generally be used in the body of an article
The article needs a general copyedit for grammar and clarity
There's an italics problem at the beginning of "Exhibitions"
The "current" exhibition has now ended
All measurements should be converted using the convert template
See also should be before References

There are HUGE sections of the article that are unreferenced, including the entire Historical Background section
As a guideline: minimum 1 reference per paragraph, usually more. Anything involving a number, an opinion, or a possible controversial addition must be cited
Tertiary sources like Britannica are generally discouraged where reliable secondary sources are available
Title, date of retrieval and author/publisher where available are needed for web references
Ref 3 needs a date
The title of Ref 4 is misspelled
Refs 8, 9 and 11 are broken, as is the first bulleted reference
Why is Read or Die a reference when it's not mentioned in the article?
Links 3, 5, and 7 are broken
Blogs as external links are generally discouraged

You might discuss the oft-reported reaction of Prince Charles to the library's design
The design/construction/criticism of the new building is also a good topic for inclusion
You could also include the management/structure/organization of the library in more detail

It holds items "in all known languages and formats"? There had better a very reliable reference to back up that statement
Take a look at WP:WTA, WP:Weasel, and WP:Peacock - certain words introduce an editorial bias to an article and should be avoided
Some parts of the article read as promotional material

No issues noted

The images need to be rearranged a bit in order to better match up the text with the images