Talk:Didgeridoo/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Verdict
[edit]Checking against the criteria, the article have entire paragraphs without in-line citations or totally unsourced, which is reason enough to a quick-fail. Further reviewing, it also fails the criteria 1(a) and 1(b) since it is not well-written and fails to comply with the guideline for Lead section; 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) since it does not provide references to all sources of information in the sections dedicated to the attirubtion of those sources, does not provide in-line citations from reliable sources where needed and may contain original research; and 3(a) and 3(b) since it may noy cover the topic as broad as possible, and goes into unnecesarry technical details.
As a final note, it is too early to nominate this article for GA status. My recommendations: Fill every statement with its correspondent source, revise it against original research, ask for a copy edit, rework the lead section, and manage the unnecesarry technical details, at first.
The result: Quickfailed.