Talk:Swastika/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Tbhotch in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: TbhotchTalk C. 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    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:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
  • General
10 dead links
5 dablinks
Like users said at FAC and the talkpage, it have too many images, you should create a gallery in the aricle or maybe with commons:Swastika is enough.
A lot of [citation needed] tags, if you cannot provide the fact, remove it.
  • Lead
Per WP:Lead this section should have at least 3 paragraphs, also, remeber that it summarize the entire article.
Hakenkreuz shouldn't be in bold.
The hatnote about merging Manji (Kanji) must dissapear.
  • Etymology and alternative names
meaning any lucky or auspicious object, -> meaning "any lucky or auspicious object",
the list in the section has to dissapear.
  • Geometry
Nazi ensigns had a through and through image, so both versions were present, one on each side, but the Nazi flag on land was right-facing on both sides and at a 45° rotation.[7]

The name "sauwastika" is sometimes given to the left-facing form of the swastika ().[8] -> Both para should be merged in one oly paragraph.

File:Selection of Vinča symbols in Gimbutas font.png missing permission.

I would continue reviewing the article, but the nominator is blocked, so this is for other users, I recommend first resolve those comments (in special the "General section"). Take this to per review before WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Article quick failed. TbhotchTalk C. 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you feel this is in error, you may request a Good article reassessment. TbhotchTalk C. 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply