Talk:Chikan, Kaiping/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Will review this soon. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Here are my comments. Thanks for your work on this, but I don't think this meets the GA criteria at the moment and needs a lot of work before it does:
- Per WP:MOSLEAD, the lead needs to be at least a good para long for an article of this length
- The coverage needs to be as broad as possible. Here you can find many Good Articles on places, and you should try to structure your article on similar lines.
- Sources are required in many places.
- The references need to be formatted properly, you may wish to read and learn to use Template:Cite. I am not sure which source is reliable and which is not as most of them are in Chinese.
The first step should be to request a copyedit, and we don't know how long it may take to have one done. So perhaps it is the best to fail this nomination for now and once all the extensive work required for this is completed, feel free to renominate. I would like to hear from you on this before we take the next step. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Wishva de Silva: Please respond by 12 June. If you do not, then this nomination will have to be failed. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: Hi there, I apologize for this rather late response, I have noticed your review a few days ago but was busy preparing for a Chemistry exam (which I just had this afternoon) so I didn't respond back then. Anyway, thanks for the reviews--both for this one and the one on Macau. I am new to the GA nomination process, I think I may underestimated the article qualities good enough for GA. Please don't fail this one just yet if possible, let me see if I could do some improvement on it. Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- No problem Wishva de Silva. This needs extensive work to meet the GA criteria, so I would advise you to look at some GA-standard articles on places (see the link above) and do what you can for this article. If you have any doubts ask me. Even if it is failed, I hope it would have improved a lot by then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: I understand. Thanks a lot :) Wishva de Silva (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- No problem Wishva de Silva. This needs extensive work to meet the GA criteria, so I would advise you to look at some GA-standard articles on places (see the link above) and do what you can for this article. If you have any doubts ask me. Even if it is failed, I hope it would have improved a lot by then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: Hi there, I apologize for this rather late response, I have noticed your review a few days ago but was busy preparing for a Chemistry exam (which I just had this afternoon) so I didn't respond back then. Anyway, thanks for the reviews--both for this one and the one on Macau. I am new to the GA nomination process, I think I may underestimated the article qualities good enough for GA. Please don't fail this one just yet if possible, let me see if I could do some improvement on it. Wishva de Silva (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wishva de Silva: No response since over a week. I think you have been given enough time to improve the article but it can't make it to GA at the moment. I am failing this, but I hope you will understand the GA criteria and renominate this after you have worked as well as you can on this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)