Talk:Cambridge Chronicle/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Claritas § 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this, as it falls significantly short of the good article criteria.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Seems fine, but repetition of the phrase "vibrant newspaper industry" should be removed.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): 
- There aren't enough citations to independent reliable sources. "Corporate Ownership" and "Production" are unreferenced.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Very little of the article is actually about the newspaper itself - there's little content concerning organisation of material in the newspaper. There's some background information, but basic facts such as that it is published on Thursdays are omitted.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No problems as far as I can see.
- 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):
- More images are needed, if available. The photograph of the front page isn't in high enough definition to read anything apart from the masthead.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This needs significant improvement before it is taken to GAR again. I'd also advise moving the table of editors to the right of the article. I've had problems finding any sources for the article through the internet, so I would suggest asking for assistance at WikiProject Journalism. Regards. Claritas § 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
