Talk:Cambridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 07:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article isn't ready for a full GA review yet. The large number of {{citation needed}} tags is a red flag and, looking closer, there are many parts of the article that are unverifiable at the moment. These maintenance tags need to be addressed, and you need to make sure that the article as a whole is verifiable. Statistics, quotes and anything controversial, unexpected or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation to a reliable source. eg.

"Duroliponte means bridge over the duro or duroli, which appears to derive from the celtic word for water."
"...this is obviously a back-formation from the English name."
"According to legend, ... However, there is no written record of this notion."

Some other points to bear in mind are:

The article needs to adhere to WP:LEAD for GA. The lead should adequately summarise the main points of the article. At the moment, for example, the lead has nothing on the history, governance or culture of the city (apart from the university).
The article doesn't need to be exhaustive at GA, only "broad", but I would expect to see a bit more history of the place. For example, surely there's more about the Roman settlement, and the detail between Norman times and the 20th century is somewhat sketchy.
Make sure all sources used would meet WP:RS. For example, who's Ian Kitching and what makes him a reliable self-published source?
Beth Shalom is a disambiguation page
There are several dead links marked, make sure readers can access the sources to verify the information in the article
Watch overlinking like college and non-intuitive linking such as linking the word "churches" in the body of the article, to a category.

Please see the GA criteria for more on what is required, and I'd recommend perhaps a peer review before a further good article nomination. Let me know if you have any questions. --Beloved Freak 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these useful comments. I think I have covered most of them and will submit the article for peer-review as you suggested.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]