Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and I am not prepared to pass the article for GA as it is. I have listed below some of the more serious of the many problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. The article will need further work once the issues below are dealt with, these are only the most serious problems. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Issues preventing promotion
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- The lead does not provide an adequate introduction to the article's topic. It must have at least two (but no more than four) clear and consice paragraphs explaining the event and its consequences. At the moment I am afraid that it is nothing more than a collection of often unrelated sentences.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- The first section in the main body of the article has to discuss the event, but this article does not do this, instead leaping into the secondary effects of the explosion.
- The investigation section is far too short and cursory. A full explanation of the investigation and search for culprits needs to be made.
- Many sections are out of order - there needs to be some sort of "intentions" section which incorporates the information about the Pakistani leadership, the American presence and any other motives for the attack. At the moment this information is scattered through the article. The information on the bombing: explosives, video etc. all have to be organised in a single section that clearly outlines the secquence of events.
- The consequences section is poorly written and largely incomplete.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It seems as if the points of view on this event have been cobbled together from bits found online. There needs to be a proper representation of information about potential culprits and international and domestic reaction.
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- A week and no action or improvement. This nomination has failed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)