Jump to content

Talk:New Mexico/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: White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • The article is fairly well written. If I were you though, I'd take one more look over it to check any spelling and grammar mistakes.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also a few bits that are oddly worded for example, "The United States Census Bureau, as of July 1, 2008, estimated New Mexico's population at 1,984,356" How about "As of July 1, 2008, the United States Census Bureau estimated New Mexico's population at 1,984,356.":* Done NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 04:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few sections that are way too small to deserve it's own section. For example, the "Flora and fauna" secion should be merged with perhaps the Geography section or enlarged. It does'nt make since haveing a secion talk aobut flowers if it is entitled "geography" so you may also want to rename that section an appropriate new name if you take my advice. Not a deal breaker but it does seem a bit odd.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Offline source accepted in good faith. No issues here. You just need more of them! (See above)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Well, overall, the article is broad in coverage and is on topic. The only exeptions are that you'll need to expand the Sports, Art and Literature adn Education secions a bit. (Along with the others listed above)--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No POV in existance.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No issue in this category.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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):
    Good to go.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Overall: Well, this is almost there. You'll need to properly adress those issues and then I'll pass it. And as for the deadline, as long as you keep working on it, I'll make the deadline indef. You'll need the extra time. Perhaps you can get Spongefrog and a few other people to help you out. I'd help out but seeing as I am the reviewer, I can't really work on it without a COI!--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

I'm not the reviewer, but I'd say that the Race and ancestry section needs more sources, especially with the percentage of which cultures live there (hopefully you know what I mean). --Hadger 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer, I'll have to argee with what he's saying here. You need a citatin for every culture.--White Shadows you're breaking up 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There already citiations that cite this. It's after "According to the US Census" or something like that. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

  1. The Transportation section still needs some more citations.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Political section needs more citations.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The education system still needs major expanding and citations as well.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Expansion needed tags still need to be addressed.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. some links are have names but nothing else. You need access dates for evey online source as well as an author if possible.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This article should not be passed in its current state. Many sections need expansion and lots more refs are required. Aaroncrick TALK 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) He's right. I'm going to have to fail this one since nothing much is happening. I'm sorry NSD, maybe you can keep on working on it and nominate it later.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Mexico/GA1&oldid=1142443215"