Talk:Santa Maria, Bulacan/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'll take this article for review. I should have a full review up within the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Watch out for "weasel words", including "apparently", "are considered", etc. These need to be carefully verified and sourced.
- There are numerous lists of information that are indiscriminate, unsourced, and/or could be better presented as prose. For example, the entire Agriculture section needs to be reworked: properly sourced, lists and bullet points transformed into prose, etc.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- This is the area where the article majorly fails the GA criteria. It is significantly under-referenced, with entire sections missing references. What references are in the article are generally incomplete, and in a few cases are simply bare urls.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Image galleries are discouraged. Appropriate images should be placed throughout the article, and a link to Commons will suffice for the remainder.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- At this point, the sourcing and prose/list issues are too big for the article to be brought up to standard within the normal GAN period. Due to this, I am failing the article's GA nomination. The article may be renominated when the identified issues have been addressed. Because of the major issues already identified, I have not completed full checks of prose, image licensing, scope/focus or NPOV. Please make sure that these areas are also meet the GA criteria before renominating the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: