Talk:Warren Cup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article; I'm happy to field this review! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The MOS for lead sections is not being adhered to here, as this article's lead does not amply summarise the rest of the article. There are various problems with "words to watch" in the text, such as "said to have been found". There are many stand alone sentences, which should be merged or otherwise combined into a paragraph structure.
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.
	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).	At present, far too many of the references are to entire books, without specifying the pages in question that are relevent.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	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.	Although not necessary fot this GAN, I think that this article would be greatly aesthetically improved if the images were to be moved around a little. As it is, they look rather clogged up toward the early part of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	As it currently stands, I cannot award this article GA status. Nevertheless, it is not far off from achieving that, and has clearly been greatly improved by recent work. I will give the nominator some time to deal with the problems that I have highlighted before I make a decision as to whether it shall be passed or failed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] As User:BlueMoonset has pointed out to me, there has been no response for six weeks, so I think it best to fail this nomination for now. Nevertheless, I hope that the advice for improvement I have provided will be of utility to editors in improving this article and bringing it up to the necessary standard in future. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]