Talk:Asinara/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This is not reasonably well written. Poor phrasing and word choice abound. The grammar is sub standard throughout. The lead does not fully summarise the article. Solitary sentences abound. Statements are contradictory. Please get it copy edited and then submit to peer review before renominating

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sources appear to be RS; a clarification needed tag needs addressing; no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   OK

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Poor word choice implies a point of view in places. this will be sorted out by copy-editing.

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):

   Images licensed OK, captions are poorly written.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a long way from GA standard and should never have been nominated in this poor state. You are supposed to get the article up to standard and then submit for review. Get it copy edited by someone with a good command of plain good English, then submit for peer review before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)