Talk:Grand National/GA1
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 26, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: The writing is generally OK, but there are a number of paragraphs consisting of only one or two sentences. There are a number of things that could do with improving from an MoS point of view. The Notes section is essentially a trivia section is everything but name, see WP:AVTRIV. The list of winners is so large that is would be better off as a separate List of Grand National winners. Items mentioned in the lead should also be included in the body of the article (WP:LEAD). For an example of a cleaner structure in an article about a sporting event, see FIFA World Cup or Rugby World Cup
- 2. Factually accurate?: Fail. A large number of paragraphs contain no references at all.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. The iconic status of the event as the most high profile in British horseracing is not discussed, neither is the importance of the event to the bookmaking trade. The fearsome reputation of the course caused by the number of runners who fail to complete it barely mentioned.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability? Pass, no obvious edit wars
- 6. Images?: Pass, a photograph of the course would be useful though, maybe the one currently in Aintree Racecourse?
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Oldelpaso (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)