Talk:War in Darfur/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: fixed five and tagged five.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2010 (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):
The prose could do with a thorough copy-edit, for grammar, clarity and readability.

a number of stray sentences which should be consolidated into paragraphs.

the lead does not fully summarise the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
five dead links

inconsistently formatted in-line citations

Those sources which are accessible appear to be reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
A better explanation of the causes of the conflict is needed, also a more thorough analysis of Sudan's politics and the deacdes long cicil ear in the South which has some connection to this.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
This is an emotive topic and I believe that many additions to this article have introduced a non-neutral point of view.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Appear to have been a large number of fairly recent POV additions.
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:

'::I am going to delist this as the article does not currently meet the good article criteria. When it has been sorted out, please renominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]