Talk:SM North EDSA/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There are quite a few issues with this article; I've highlighted the main ones below. If we can clear these us, I can go through in more detail. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
1. Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- "Incidents" section is simply four bulleted items at the moment; it should be rendered as a paragraph or similar
- Similarly for the "Mall Anchors" section
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
- Numerous gaps here. Large parts of the History section aren't referenced, including direct stats etc. Several other sections give references, but the references don't support the parragaphs - "Interior Zone (Annex 1)", "The Annex (Annex 2)" etc. are examples of these.
- The article also relies very heavily on the mall's own website - the vast majority of citations come from here.
(c) it contains no original research.
- The lack of citations at the moment means it would fail on OR.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The gallery doesn't fit with the wikipedia image use policy.