Talk:Digital Nations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   see number 5

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   see number 4

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   relies almost entirely on primary sources

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. The prose reads as very non-neutral and promotional. For example the use of "bonded by" and "intend" sound more like trying to sell people on the ideas of the organization rather than describing them.

2. Contributing to the promotional feel is the focus on what the D5 intend to do rather than what they have done. We can't predict the future and so the article shouldn't be so largely focused on the intents.

3. The Independent and Evening Standard sources are exactly the same.

4. The D5 London 2014 section needs work to comply with MOS:PARAGRAPHS namely "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." So "Themes" really need not be a subheading, similarly "Events" probably shouldn't be either. I'd say "teaching" "open markets" and "connectivity" are fine as they have at least two paragraphs. The section though should be rewritten.

5. "became the first country in the world to mandate that coding be taught to all pupils" seems to be close paraphrasing. Since the source is freely licensed, it needs a citation

6. "as many as dozens" This is horribly imprecise.

7. External links should not be in the body of the article.

Results

Quick Fail as I think the article will need to be largely rewritten to comply with the GA criteria. The article is not written in WP:WikiVoice and reads much more like a press release than an encyclopedia article which contributes to an overly promotional and non-neutral tone. I also have concerns about the use sources as almost all (11 of 16) are not independent of the topic. This is a big problem that I think also contributes to the promotional tone. I strongly recommend a peer review before renominating to help iron out the prose issues. Wugapodes (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)