Talk:Izhorian Museum/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: Красный (talk · contribs) 07:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 04:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this article soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I truly find it a shame to do so, I am upset that I have to make the decision to quick-fail this nominee, I believe the sourcing issue is not at GA standard at the moment. However, please don't let this discourage you from continuing to work on the article! I respect the time you spent working thru the article you went to this location and photographed yourself. Note that all th other criteria appear to be correct so I am passing them. If you have any questions, just ask on my talk page.

1. The prose is generally good, with content in the lede later cited in the article. I also don't notice any WtW in the article so... Passed.
2. Sourcing is the biggest issue in the article in my opinion, some appear to be blogs or official websites. Local newspapers, self-published websites (with no references section at the bottom) are prone inaccuracy and errors so I unfortunately have to fail this criteria. to I am unable do verify content that have permanent dead link URLs so I am assuming good faith that it's correct.
3. Article is focused. I was unable to find needless detail.
4. Article has no issue of neutrality.
5. Article is stable, no edit wars etc...
6. Article has one image with a verifiable copyright status and a suitable caption. I respect that you took the image yourself.

The discussion above 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.