Talk:Dog/GA3
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Wretchskull (talk · contribs) 19:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Review
[edit]Judging from the article quality and the nominator, I am not quite sure they fully know the good article criteria, as they are quite new to Wikipedia, and haven't contributed to this article that much. This article is far away from GA, but I will still give this a shot.
Wording
- The article is generally well-written but there are some grammatical errors.
- There aren't any major WP:MOS violations, but there are cases of inappropriately incorporating links and "see (article)" into prose, which should be avoided. A see also or main article template at the beginning of the section is better.
Verifiability
- This article contains many unreferenced sentences, sometimes even entire paragraphs.
- Plagiarism is somewhat prevalent in sections regarding Dogs health and behaviour.
Coverage
- Many paragraphs are one or two sentences, an article this notable could probably get these expanded easily.
- The lead is too short for its article. If one compares this to Cat, we can see more information about feline behaviour, communication and so on.
- Some sections are needed; evolution, temperament, etc., which are missing.
- Cultural depictions can be vastly expanded, dogs have been domesticated for millennia, so, ancient and modern history has a reservoir of information about that. Upon some quandary, essentially, all sections should be expanded.
Neutrality
- Some viewpoints mentioned by TV shows or popular persons are overvalued and have too much coverage, medical or scientific ones should have more coverage and should not go astray to unnecessary viewpoints.
Images
- I do not see any copyright violations.
Overall review: Fail. This article needs significant cleanup, expansion of sections, addition of new sections, addition of references and attention to WP:MOS. @ThatIPEditor: This is of course a good faith nomination, but please make sure that you read the criteria for good articles before nominating an article. This may be a disappointment but I would encourage you to see this review as a check-list on how to get this to GA a little easier, also, consider familiarizing yourself with more Wikipedia guidelines that will facilitate nominations in the future, such as verifiability, due weight, etc. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wretchskull, Sounds good, and yes, I have asked people over the discord about this before nominating, but yeah, thanks! ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 06:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)