Jump to content

Talk:Unicorn/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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.:
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


I'm quick failing this review on the basis:

  • Whole paragraphs of uncited text.
  • Inconsistent referencing styles.
  • This article, while not terrible, still requires a lot of cleanup before it can make GA. At first glance, extensive see also section, mentioning unlinked terms in the text.
  • Nominator is an IP and unlikely to follow-through were I to put a lot of effort into suggesting improvements.

Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment

By coincidence I was planning to review this article, but I have arrived too late. I leave my notes here in the hope that they may be useful to the nominator in revising and resubmitting:

This article has the potential to be a GA after further work, but it is not nearly ready yet. The Immediate failure criterion 1 applies: there are two "citation needed" templates in place and there are more than a dozen other places where the same template could properly be added. There are entire sections without citations. For this reason the article immediately fails the GAN [as indeed it already has].
Less crucially, but still needing attention, the references section is a mess:
  • references 2–10 all have an error message, "Check date values in: |date="
  • "page" is shown as p. or pg. indiscriminately and with or without full stops
  • some page ranges are given with a hyphen, and some with an en-dash (the latter is required by the Manual of Style)
  • you give the locations for some publishers but not others
  • ISBNs are a mixture of 10-digit and 13-digit versions – the MoS prescribes the latter (useful conversion tool here)
  • you list some authors by Firstname Secondname, and others by Secondname Firstname
  • retrieval dates (when given) are sometimes in "5 August 2013" form and sometimes "2013-08-10"
  • there are several sites to which you provide a simple link with no site names, dates or publisher details (e.g. 13, 28, 29 and others)
  • some of those sites look questionable as to WP:RS, specifically those for refs 13, 24, 28 and 30
  • ref 29 takes me to Ringling Bros Circus site
  • There are six books listed under "Sources" that don't appear to be sources at all – they are not mentioned in the text or references
I encourage the nominator to address these points and then resubmit the article for GAN. Tim riley talk 09:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, for the record, I agree with all of your comments. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]