Talk:Qemal Stafa Stadium/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:47, 13 June 2011 (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.	There are some small grammatical issues. Spelling looks to be fine
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There appears to be no issue with the manual of style.
	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.	Information is sourced.
	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).	Some sources are not reliable and some of the references are not properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It address main themes, but the article is relatively short.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some unnecessary information (new stadium should not be included in the article about another stadium).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	It is relatively stable.
	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.	All images are tagged properly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images have captions that are either have too much detail or have a confusing caption.
	7. Overall assessment.	There are too many issues with the article, so I unfortunately have to fail it.