Talk:The French Counts of St Hubert, Saskatchewan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 14:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The lead also needs to give a better description of its subject. From reading the lead, I have no idea who the counts are, why they were in the area, what they did there, etc.
   • The copyright licensing needs to be worked out for the Smeets article. See the notes I have left on the article talk page and User talk:Moonriddengirl for additional details.
   • What does the Ste-Jeanne d'Arc convent school section have anything to do with the subject of the article? There is no discussion of why even a mention of this school is appropriate in an article on the counts, much less an entire section devoted to the topic.
   • Same with the Golden Plain section - why is this relevant to the subject of the article?
   • There are many examples of unencyclopedic wording in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article. Phrasings like "one must look back to the last quarter" (in fact, this whole sentence should be removed as unencyclopedic, and replaced by something like "Early settlement patterns began in the last quarter of the nineteenth century."), "They apparently agreed" (apparently says who?), etc. Overall, the article needs a thorough copyedit with a strict eye for neutrality and encyclopedic wording.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Extensive work is needed on referencing. Entire sections go without references, and in these sections and other unreferenced areas I see quotes, opinions, etc. that are unreferenced. This is one of the largest issues standing in the way of GA status.
   • Five dead links. See here for the Toolserver report and more details.
   • Ancestry.com (refs #13 and 14) is not a reliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The article seems unfocused, with sections on schoolhouses and post offices that give no indication of their relation to the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the French counts, so the article needs to be tightened to focus on them, not on the general history of the area.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   • Are there really no other appropriate images for this article? A 50kb article with only one image and one map is a bit...unusual. However, images are not a requirement for GA, and so if there are really no other related/appropriate images out there, the article will be fine as is.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Overall, while I can see that a lot of work has been put into this article, more is needed before it is of GA status. Quite a bit of attention to referencing and focus/encyclopedic tone is necessary, and the copyright ownership of the Smeets article will need to be worked out. At this point, due to the large amount of work that is needed, I am failing the article's GA nomination. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)