Talk:Cephalotheca foveolata/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Esotericorangepeel (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 24, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No. The lede is almost non existent. No MOS is followed and the article is terribly undersourced with very few inline cites.

2. Verifiable?: Neutral.

3. Broad in coverage?: This is the major reason for the fail. The article barely makes it the criteria and not at all broad in it's coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Stable?: Yes.

6. Images?: Yes.

Sadly, this is going to be a quick fail. The article requires a very thorough analysis and I urge the (future) nominator to get familiar with the good article criteria, especial the 3rd one. We need more information on the species, the relevance, the history and the further details. Kindly refer to other GAs on the topic. Thanks and happy editing.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.