Talk:London Fire Brigade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: repaired four and tagged 16.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
other various rescue operations "various"?

Lots of lists that need turning into prose.

Single sentences and short paragraphs need consolidation; likwise with short sections.

Poor prose, spelling and organisation throughout.

Lead does not summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
16 dead links, some of the other repaired links do not support statements.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The history section is cursory at best; other information that should be there and could be fairly easily found are fuller details of training, funding, political control, etc
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A very definite fail, I am afraid. please familiarise yourself with the good article criteria, work on the article and put up for per preview before considering renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]