Talk:Quebec City/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Sections should not be composed of only a link, as in the Notable people section. Either create a summary paragraph or move the link into another section.
   • I am seeing much outdated information, such as crime rates from 2007. This is partially a problem of old sources (see comment below)
   • The lead should be longer for an article of this length. WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs, and while there are currently three paragraphs, they are all quite short. The lead should be a summary of the body, and not include new information, which it currently does.
   • Because of the other issues with the article, I have not checked prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • This article has an extreme lack of sources. This is especially evident in sections such as "Climate", where statistics are given with no reference (and a citation needed tag is located), and "Demographics", which also gives statistics without references. The lack of references also makes it hard to determine if there is original research in the article.
   • There is a citation needed banner in the Partner cities section that has been there since 2008.
   • Many of the references are missing vital information, such as publishers and access dates.
   • Many of the references are outdated, with community profiles from 2006 and climate data that reaches only to 2000.
   • Reference #2 is a dead link.
   • There are hundreds of books and magazine and journal articles about Quebec City and the surrounding area. Some or many of them would probably be helpful in fleshing out this article to meet even the broadness criteria of GAN.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Has the governance structure changed at all over the course of the city's history? Are there any media organizations/newspapers based in the city? What are the primary and secondary schools like and how are they organized? These and other questions become evident from even a quick scan of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Text should not be sandwiched between images or between an image and a box, as it is in many places in the article. Overall, this article looks cluttered, with the graphics overwhelming the text. Because of the number of images and the need to remove a few of them, I have not checked image licensing.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Because of the number of issues with this article, especially those related to references, I am failing this article. There is, I believe, too much work that needs to be done for it to happen in a reasonable time frame. Once the above issues have been addressed, the article may be brought back to GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)