Talk:Santería/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 20:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Right, I see that this one has been waiting some time, so I'll give it a go.[reply]

Checklist

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.	Prose is insufficient in many areas, and whole paragraphs are copied from pre-existing sources.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fails to adhere to the manual of style; insufficient introduction etc.
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.	While most of the article is referenced, there are a number of unreferenced paragraphs and statements.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Too many areas left out.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article fails to reflect all sides of the debate on the issue of Santeria.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	With only one image currently used for the entire article, more images are required.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fails on far too many counts, sorry. This article needs some major work from an editor familiar with botj the academic texts on the subject and with the process of constructing a good Wikipedia article.