Talk:Fairway Shops/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not to GA standard. Some thoughts below.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is to a good standard
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Not much to work with (small lead, two sections)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Contains references
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Around 2 thirds of the references are from the same two news outlets; inline citations used appropriately
	2c. it contains no original research.	Doesn't seem to
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None visible
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not in my view - four measly paragraphs. No notability established at all.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Hard to go off topic with what little info there is
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not too sure here - feels like it could have been written with someone who wants to promote it for personal benefit
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Three total article edits from the same person...
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	A single image in the infobox - not much to go on
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The single image is of part of the shops, so it's relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	Not a good article.

I can't find any issues of concern with the prose, but then there is barely anything noteworthy to read. The lead is under the usual expected size for shopping malls/shop groups, the history essentially consists of a single sentence and the article doesn't present any information that in my view makes it worthy of even being an article.

This is likely falling into the stub category and stubs cannot be good articles. This also seems to be a case of WP:MILL with no notability established; it's just a group of several shops, essentially a list that has been written into 2 paragraphs (though admittedly, reasonably well written). The author may well think this is worthy of an article, but if it is then there is nothing that justifies this argument at this present time. There are a fair number of shopping mall/centre articles on WP, with many of them stubs or lists but to my knowledge these ones are not hoping to achieve GA recognition in their respective states. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)