Talk:Geological history of Earth/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Overuse of bolding, puzzling lack of paragraphs, but not necessarily a GA requirement.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some references are provided.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   "ICS 2004" is a frequently used cite, but I see no ICS in the references listing. If it was there I would be tempted to pass this article. But the lack of cites in general is enough to make me fail the article. Even if the ICS source was listed, there are still large gaps between cites.

   C. No original research:

   Unsourced statements may contain original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Article is very broad and comphrehensive, practially FA quality.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are great, lead photo is a FP on the Commons. Illustrations are of professional quality.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   An otherwise great article if it weren't lacking citations. If someone took the time to fix this up, it could be FA-quality in no time. I suggest a renomination when issues have been addressed, but I'm going to have to quickfail this one. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've converted the bare ICS 2004 to a linked reference to the ICS 2008 timescale, is this what you were after? (I know it doesn't address your concerns about citing in general) Mikenorton (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. If I had realized someone would respond so quickly I would have put it on hold. But there are still other issues, such as lack of paragraphs, holding it back. GA standards have improved, and citations are necessary at every step. Each paragraph needs at least one cite, and usually involve three or more. Facts need to be checked and insured that they are correct. You can't rely upon facts in other WP articles because they have not been checked in this review. Each article must stand on its own, with complete references. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue but someone from another planet might not believe you. Sometimes obvious facts are not so obvious. I still would suggest a renomination, just to insure a thorough review. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)