Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 21, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I have had to place a large number of citation needed tags, the article is poorly cited at present.

   I have tagged 16 dead links using Checklinks

   The links that I have been able to to verify appear OK

   Refs #3, 7, 23, 28, 29 need citing to reliable sources. At the moment they are unsubstantiated assertions.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The poor state of referencing for this article means that I am immediately de-listing it. Major contributors and projects will be notified. When these concerns have been addressed the article may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessment please take it to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)