Talk:Nicaraguan Canal and Development Project/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for nominating this page for GA status. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a review, and I look forward to reviewing this interesting and well-written article. I'll review this article against the six GA criteria and would love to hear from you during the review. I'll take a quick read of the article and let you know about any major issues. Once they're addressed, I'll do a more thorough review and check of the sources, and then complete the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

At the moment, the main issue I can see is verifiability - there seems to be a lack of references in the "Description of canal" and "Construction" sections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest rewording "Description of Canal" to "Description of planned canal" to highlight it hasn't actually been built yet. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you've put a lot of work into this article. I await your response and will continue the review after some citations have been provided. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

No response in 2 weeks - am closing this review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am marking this review as failed, for the following reasons:

Lacks sources in a large number of areas, making it difficult to verify
Lacks coverage of previous plans, impacting on broadness
I do not feel the text conveys clearly enough that the canal hasn't actually been constructed yet, impacting on clarity

I hope the editors of this article don't take this badly. With a bit of work it can definitely make it to GA, however it's not ready just yet. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]