Talk:Piscadera Bay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may take me a couple of days to start this. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

class=notpageimage|

The location of Piscadera Bay on the island of Curaçao

@QatarStarsLeague:

A couple of first thoughts.

Per MOS:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". So far as I can see, almost none of the lead appears in the main article.
The main article gives no introduction to nor background on the topic of the article. It starts straight into "Landmarks", without setting them in context. (Much of that context seems to be in the lead.)
A location map would be helpful: see a possible example to the right.
Currently the article seems to consist entirely of landmarks. Is that correct, and/or appropriate?
The GAN instructions state that "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." As you don't seem to have edited this article at all, could you give the diffs or links of the requisite consultations with the regular editors.

I haven't actually read the article yet, but thought that I would mention the above while you were waiting for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the article there are a number of other areas which need considerable improvement to meet the GA criteria.
The nominator has not edited since 1 September, and only twice since 19 August.
There has been no response to the comments I have posted above.

I am therefore failing the article. If it is to be renominated, considerable work needs to be done first. I have added a location map as a start towards this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed