Talk:Brampton Arts Walk of Fame/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose could do with copy-editing to render into "reasonably good prose.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References to Twitter, a blog (High Heel Confidential), Youtube, etc are not WP:RS I question whether an article in a Lancashire (England) Asian online newspapere is a Rs for this article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
There is no evidence from RS that the subject of this article exists. There are passing mentions that it may exist in the future, but everything else is unsupported conjecture. The only hard facts appear to be unrelated to the article subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
As there is little fact in the article, it is hard to determine this
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Images have suitable licences or rationales, but those of persons lack captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This is nowhere near GA status and indeed the notability of the subject is questionable. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.