Talk:Cryptozoology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I think I am going to have to speedy fail this, as it requires a lot more work before it will be ready for GA status. Here are some of the major issues-

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are cite needed templates in the article, and has been tagged for a little while as needing more consistent sourcing. I can see why- the linking and formatting in the references is a mess. Additionally, there has been a tag calling for an expert in the subject for some time. That really shouldn't shout "good article" to you.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This is a big topic- an article of this size simply can't cover the things that need to be covered. Equally, it's a topic in which, while it carried some interest for me when I was younger, I am no expert, so I couldn't tell you right now what else is needed.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article does seem to be strongly in favour of cryptozoology- if you'll note the comparative lengths of the sections, the section defending the discipline (which is, afterall, not the most respected scientific discipline...) is over twice as long. Lending too much credence to a discipline that is not widely respected creates serious problems concerning undue weight. The general tone is also a little non-neutral- to pick out some phrases at random- "countless articles on numerous cryptozoological subjects" and "often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence". To be honest, I think this is bad enough to warrant a maintenance tag...

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The lead image does not even have a rationale. This article should not be led by a non-free image- I know for a fact we have free images of cryptids. Please please please use one of them.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are so many issues that I can't even put this on hold. Even if I was to do so, I see the tags currently in the article have been languishing for a while, so I doubt the issues would be dealt with. The article needs serious work before it can be nominated again.