Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review. I should have a full review up within the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded to three solid paragraphs for an article of this size. The lead should summarize the body of the article, without providing unique information (information not found in the body of the article).
   • The Lawsuit section is over four years out of date. Has anything happened since 2009? This is also true for the Offer to repatriate section.
   • "By whom?" tag in the Aftermath section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The referencing in this article needs significant work. Overall, more in-line references are needed, both in the places identified by "citation needed" tags and in other areas. There are significant swaths of the article completely lacking references, while included statistics and potentially controversial information.
   • What references are in the article need additional work:

   • There are five dead links in the article, see the Toolserver report for further information. This report also lists a couple of links to redirects which point back to this article, which should also be fixed.
   • Bare urls are unacceptable for references. Web references should have titles, publishers and access dates at the very least.
   • Please check references to make sure they are all reliable. The dead links currently make it hard to check all references for reliability.

   • The links in the Sources and External links sections will probably provide a significant amount of the sources necessary for improving the in-line referencing of this article. Any ELs that are used for sourcing should be removed from the EL section.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • While there is no actual edit warring in the article history, it does show that this article has been put together by a number of different disconnected editors, which shows in the article itself. In general, a concerted cleanup effort by an editor or coordinated group of editors is needed to bring an article to GA status, and it is clear from the edit history that this has not happened.

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

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

   • I am unsure of the point of the two galleries later in the article, especially the one of the Tourist attraction section. What do four pictures of the Pueblo in NK tell the reader that one picture does not?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, this article is a long ways from GA status, especially with regards to referencing. Because there is so much work that needs to be done on the referencing, I have not completed full prose, image or NPOV checks. Please make sure that the article meets the good article criteria before renominating the article at GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)