Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of March 14, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Her emphasis on supporting democratically elected governments faced challenges as Hamas captured a popular majority in Palestinian elections yet supported Islamist militants, and influential countries including Saudi Arabia and Egypt maintained authoritarian systems with U.S. support. - can you try to improve the grammar here, it flows rather badly.

   I made a number of copy-edits for clarity and style. Please check through the article, paying close attention to punctuation.

   The flow of the article is not good. There are chops and changes throughout, especially in the chronology. Better to simplify the section structure

   The Cultural references is a list and as such deprecated by WP:MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I found and tagged several dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS and repaired others.

   Is ref #5 [1] a reliable source?

   Referencing is inconsistent, please supply publisher details and publication date throughout.

   ref #119 ??? no source, publisher, date

   what makes ref #102 [2] a reliable source?

   The references section is unrelated to the notes, usually this contains works cited in the notes. If these sources are used in the article then cite them directly.

   Academic studies, should have ISBN or doi details.

   ELS. Are all of these really necessary. Do they comply with WP:EL?

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):

   File:RICEBUSHSIGN.jpg and File:Condoleezza Rice and Michaelle Jean.jpg sandwich the text awkwardly, please move one or the other.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The issues above need to be addressed, on hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

   Well, some edits have been made [3], and one dead link has been fixed but the main issues above have not been addressed, so I am de-listing this now. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)