Talk:Lund University/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ok. Off the bat, this meets the quick fail criteria, as there are several tags on the article (the section expansion and lack of sources), which is a big no-no for Good Article status. Second, you do lack information in important places. I understand if sources may lack, but history of a current-day university doesn't end at the 1820s. There are places this should be worked on. Also, not a complaint, I love the illustration of this article. When this is fully complete, they'll be a great help! Sorry to do this, but I have to fail this until the major issues are solved, and 7 days won't be enough in my opinion. Send me a message if you have a problem!Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)