Talk:The Telegraph in Schools/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I am going to have to fail this article at this time, as it is currently a long way from meeting the good article criteria. The following are major issues would need to be dealt with before this article would be ready for renomination:
- The lead section (that is, the introductory section before the first section header) currently takes up the majority of the article. As per the guideline on lead sections, it should only take up a small section, and contain a summary of what is said in other sections. As such, it should not contain anything which is not included in another section.
- In places, the prose is overly-promotional. Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view, wording like "At its heart", "TTIS teaches the young to have a voice through the sections like letters to the editor, 'open forum', 'big question' and more", "thus instilling in each student the will to be a confident individual as they grow to be the future citizens of the country" and "encouraging the feeling of sharing and caring irrespective of their backgrounds" makes the article read like promotional material. This is not acceptable in any article, and would have to be completely smoothed out before this could even be considered for good article status. Worst of all, you are apparently writing from the point of view of the publication- "and our Tigers are the Reporters and Brand Ambassadors in and outside their schools." As per this guideline, you should avoid writing about projects of which you are a part if you are unable to write about them neutrally.
- The article cites only two sources, and both are primary; as such, it cites no reliable sources. Good articles must be based upon reliable sources. The lack of reliable sources also brings into question the notability of the publication.
- The formatting on the article really needs to be improved, and it needs to be wikified- relevant internal links need to be added to the text, formatting should be used where appropriate (for instance, newspaper names should be in italics) and should not be overused (the bold wording should not be used).
Due to these issues, I have tagged the article with cleanup templates; you can remove them once the issues have been resolved. The alternative to the cleanup templates would be removing large sections of the article; as I am hopeful that you will be able to work on the issues I have raised, I have not done that at this time. I hope my explanations have been helpful, and will allow you to improve the article. If I can be of any help, you are welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, I am afraid I have had to remove large sections of the article, as they appear to have been copy-pasted from other sources- Facebook, TTIS, TTIS again and/or MagazineList.net. Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, and so content from other websites, unless released under a compatible free license, may not be copied into articles. This is a very important issue, and, unless you are certain that the content you are copying is freely released, you should not copy it; failing to respect copyright could potentially get you or Wikipedia into trouble, and is not something that will be tolerated on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)