Talk:Ghana/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 18:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am volunteering to review this nomination. I live in the UK and take an interest in Ghana, a country I have visited. I will be reading the article through and making some preliminary comments in the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

First reading

I have read carefully through the article. In general the prose and style is good but there are a few problems that I have listed below. I will be looking at the other GA criteria later Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• General

1. Excessive wikilinking of, for example, "Kwame Nkrumah" and "Jerry John Rawlings". You could look through the article with the "Highlight duplicate links" tool and remove excess links.

• History

1. Many of the paragraphs lack inline citations.
2. "The Portuguese aim was to trade for Akan gold." is unreferenced and should not be wikilinked in this way.
3. There is an unsatisfactory reference "Webcitation.org, Archived 31 October 2009.</ref>" in paragraph 6.

• Judicial system

1. Mention of Fourth Republic, unmentioned previously

• Foreign relations and military

1. First paragraph has no inline citations.

• Foreign relations and military

1. Excessive wikilinking. For example "Gold Coast Regiment" is wikilinked 3 times including the image caption.

• Economy

1. "27% of Ghana's population are living on less than $1.25 per day, and a rate of 25% youth unemployment" needs attention.
2. In paragraph 2, " ... declining British Empire." -British rule would be better.
3. In paragraph 5, the sentence starting "Ghana's debt was at ..." is awkward and needs rewriting.
4. In paragraph 5, the sentence starting "The escalation of unnecessary borrowing ..." is also awkward and has NPOV issues.
5. Last paragraph on tourism needs an inline citation.

• Oil reserves in Ghana

1. In paragraph 1, you should remove "y 1990 production was still negligible".
2. In paragraph 2, "GNPC also won a contract" should be GNPC also signed a contract.

• Seaport

1. In paragraph 1, I suggest ending the last sentence at Niger and omitting the rest.

• Geography

1. In paragraph 4, the phrase "main source of many tributary rivers" is incorrect. These rivers flow into the lake not out of it.

• Demographics

1. In paragraph 1, does the phrase "... counted about 6.7 million inhabitants." refer to just the Akan people?

• Health

1. I suggest changing "have been hampered by a very high rate of corruption" to are believed to have been hampered by a high rate of corruption.

• Languages

1. In paragraph 2, does the citation cover the languages that follow? If it does, move it to after the list and remove the "citation required" template.

• Religion

1. In paragraph 1, the sentence "Islam is most populous ..." needs rephrasing.
2. In paragraph 2, can the citation at the end of the first sentence be used to substantiate the next statement?
3. In paragraph 4, the word "into" is missing from the second sentence.
4. In the last paragraph, there are 2 "including"s which is confusing.

• Culture and media

1. Several paragraphs lack citations.
2. Perhaps boxing should have a separate paragraph from football.

• Media

1. The first sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify it.

• Education

1. Several paragraphs lack inline citations.
2. In paragraph 2, the first sentence could just have one inline citation at the end.
3. In paragraph 6, the second and third sentences contain uncited opinions.
4. In paragraph 8, the phrase "educational hot spots" should be reworded.
5. In paragraph 8, what have the visits of these notables got to do with education?

 DoneGreg Heffley 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose, spelling and grammar are satisfactory.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is excessive repeated wikilinking.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are many facts and complete paragraphs that do not have inline citations.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See 2a.
	2c. it contains no original research.	This is not clear because of the lack of inline citations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage of the topic is good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This aspect is fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is largely neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article seems stable now but was a matter of conflict 8 weeks ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	As far as I can see, the images are appropriately licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are a great many images (too many?) and they have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article fails to reach Good Article standard because there is too much unreferenced information in it. This includes many statistical statements where it is vital to give the source of the information. If this aspect of the article were improved it could be resubmitted for GA because in most other respects it is up to standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)