Talk:Defense Acquisition University/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 04:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.
Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.
- First comment - the primary source tag is appropriate, it's got very few secondary/tertiary sources that it really needs, there is only one right now and it's for one incident. So I will go through and provide a review but this is critical for GA status, cannot pass without more independent sources. MPJ-US 04:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
GA Toolbox
[edit]I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
- Peer review tool
- WP:LEAD indicates that an article this size should have 1-2 paragraphs, I would like GAs to strive for two.
- Copyright violations Tool
- TBD
- Disambiguation links
- No issues
- External links
- Two dead links - the DAU Annual Report and the DAU website come back as dead since 2015-10-19
Well Written
[edit]- TBD
Sources/verifiable
[edit]- This is where it fails, there is no significant, independent coverage shown here. There is ONE non-primary source and that's more about the hacking incident than the school.
- This needs to be improved if there is any hope of becoming a GA
Broad in coverage
[edit]- TBD
Neutral
[edit]- A large degree of promotional material was trimmed after this was nominated for GA - it's almost a totally different article that's there now than when it was nominated. I am a bit concerned about this,
Stable
[edit]- TBD
Illustrated / Images
[edit]- Yes, no issues
- @Huskers110110: - I am going to put this review on hold right now, the sources need to be addressed and fairly quickly too or it'll be failed within a couple of days. If you show you are serious about making this a Good Article by providing sources I will resume the review then. MPJ-US 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Huskers110110: - Five days, no activities. This article has fundamental problems, not just GA problems but wikipedia fundamental problems. So I am going to go ahead and fail it now. MPJ-US 14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)