Talk:Internal structure of Earth/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. This is mainly due to a lack of referencing in the article, but here starter list of problems:
- This article needs significantly more references. There are large swaths of the article that are unreferenced.
- The Historical development section needs expansion. How was the Hollow Earth theory proven wrong? What was wrong about it? Give us more information on the hydrogen theory - why people think it's right or wrong. The last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be referenced - which conspiracy theory cited it (and why is this relevant), and who proved it wrong?
- Ref #10 (Uni-Jena) deadlinks
- References need to be formatted consistently, either always using or never using cite templates. Websites must have a title, publisher and access date, and should never have just the bare link.
- Prose needs some work. Watch out for first person ("we must conclude"). Small paragraphs should be combined or expanded. All of the parenthetical inserts make the prose choppy and harder to read.
I have not done a complete review of the prose or images, so this list is not exhaustive. I would suggest that the nominator put a little more time into the article (they have only one edit to the article, as far as I can tell) and make sure that it is fully references and includes all relevant information before bringing it back to GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)