Talk:White Stag Leadership Development Program/GA1
I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing its Good Article Nomination. Here is a list of suggestions to work on before renomination:
- WP:LEAD: For an article of this size, the lead should be three or four well developed paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
- There is quite a lot of text that is unreferenced. As a very general guideline, there should be one reference per paragraph plus extras for controversial information.
- The article relies a lot on quotes. Because the article is past the desired page length of Wikipedia, maybe summarizing quotes would be a better strategy.
- WP:DASH: Endashes go between ranges of numbers.
- WP:BOLD: Look here for the correct usage of bolding in an article.
- WP:SUMMARY: This is employed a bit in the article, but using this strategy more might also help the length problem.
- Quite a few of the references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
- Ref 44 is invalid.
- Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I can fix many of the items mentioned, but what official guidance is there for an optimum "desired page length" of a Wikipedia article? I see articles of a variety of lengths, many of them quite a bit longer, for example, Operation Barbarossa. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- In general, between about 30–60 bytes of readable prose is when an article should probably employ WP:SUMMARY style and be split into separate articles or just trimmed down. The page Wikipedia:Article size goes into detail about page size, but a rule of thumb is located at Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb. Nikki♥311 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)