Talk:Ecoregions of Zambia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 83.84.100.133 in topic Accusation, No Proof
 | Ecoregions of Zambia was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Failed "good article" nomination
editThis article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
The article is not in compliance with the Manual of Style in many major areas. First off, it's use of numbered lists such as in Central Zambezian Miombo woodlands is not condoned by style guidelines. Next, links should never be used in section headings. If you need to link to an article that covers the section's topic or is related, use a {{mainarticle}} or {{seealso}} link under the heading. Also, the size of many of the headings is off or non-sensical. Using one level headers (=Title=) is not a generally necessary practice for section headings. Use two level headers, third level, and then fourth level in succession. Using level ones and then jumping to level four or five is not okay. - 2. Factually accurate?: The article almost completely fails the GA criteria for verification. With only one in-line citation, it's nearly a quick-fail candidate. Simply having references is not sufficient. You must attribute facts to sources through the use of in-line citations, using either the footnotes or Harvard referencing system. The GA criteria requires that an article "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.." Entire sections lacking in-line cites is unacceptable in a GA candidate. Also, the two general references provided are insufficient. Please try and find more reliable and relevant source material. Please remedy the referencing before choosing to renominate.
- 3. Broad in coverage?:
Broad in coverage, and stays on topic. - 4. Neutral point of view?: Fair representation for all significant points of view.
- 5. Article stability? No edit wars, etc.
- 6. Images?: The one image used is properly account for with licensing and such, which is the primary GA images criterion. But the article doesn't comply with WP:MOS#Images, in that its sole image is not used as the lead image (situated to the right as encouraged by the guidelines).
Overall, this article has a large amount of work to be completed before it meets the GA standard. As the work required is extensive, a hold is not appropriate. Please keep up the hard work!
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky 23:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Accusation, No Proof
edit"Bush fires range across most of the country in the later dry season, escaping from "chitemene cultivation" and caused by villagers burning off crop residue or hunting, as well as by lightning strikes." Source? 83.84.100.133 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)