Talk:Bush carpentry/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 15:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Bluedawe

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Although this article has several strengths, it does not currently fulfill the "Good Article" criteria. The places where it falls short are significant enough that I am quick-failing the nomination.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Though there are a few places where the grammar could be improved, on the whole the prose in this article is very good. I did not detect any plagiarism.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Most of the problems in this article are due to MoS problems.
Lead: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section tells us "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". This one-sentence lead does none of that.

Quotes: This article has 11 long quotes, wherein a source is quoted at length. These quotes make up a significant percentage of the total article. Some quotes are valuable, but most of these quotes can be rewritten in prose make the same point in your own words. Including so many quotes can cause copyright concerns.

Paragraphs: There are too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs.

Notes: Information in notes should be referenced. Some notes (particularly #5) should be incorporated into the prose.

Galleries: Use of galleries is not appropriate. (I'll give more detail in 6B, below.)

External links: This section is not formatted according to the MoS. Inappropriate features include lists of non-free image links, long quotes from a newspaper article, and horizontal rules.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Many of the references are dead links. Others are formatted incorrectly. Many sources in the bibliography are missing ISBNs, and others have incorrect ISBNs. Frequently the bibliography entries are formatted incorrectly in various ways.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Many statements are unsourced. This includes all of the notes, all of the "The bush" section after the first paragraph, etc.

C. No original research:
I don't think there is original research. But due to the lack of sourcing for some parts, I can't really tell.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It seems to cover all major aspects of the topic.

B. Focused:
It does not go off on unrelated tangents, excluding the galleries.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The images are all legitimately free, and many of the best images were created by the nominator, I note.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The use of galleries, in both the "Some tools..." section and "Examples of..." section, are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The "Some tools..." section should simply be removed, as the commonly-used tools have already been mentioned in the prose. The "Examples of..." section would be more appropriate as a How-to Wikibook rather than an encyclopedia article. (The images in other sections are fine.)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The lead needs to be rewritten, references added, image galleries removed, quotes reduced, and sources cleaned up. Then it could be renominated, if you wish. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]