Talk:Special drawing rights/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Going over the article again--it could be a day or two before I'm finished.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk · contribs) 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No DAB links, one dead link.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Lede section too short and does not accurately summarise the article, e.g. the role of SDRs in developing countries Prose is good but I feel there are lots of technical terms, introductions which could be handled a little better once the article is developed a little more.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Reference formatting is mixed, one dead link. In general the article does not draw on academic literature enough—this is its single biggest fault. Too much reliance on IMF briefs.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Weighting is fine except that I feel this is a bit more to say on this topic in each section.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No problems of bias are evident.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No issues here; Single dedicated editor has done most of the work.
  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):
    Has there been any attempt made to source illustrations?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This is a solid article providing basic information on what is a relatively difficult and technical topic. Fair play for taking it on! There will be need for greater reliance on academic journals and books to bring it to GA level, and then only a small amount of general clean-up. This really is the main issue--one would need at least some access of a serious or academic library. Congrulations on all the hard work done so far and the best of luck!--Ktlynch (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)