Talk:Thimphu/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

N This is an impressive article which has had a lot of work put into it. However, it also has several issues that would need to be corrected. This article really needs a thorough copy-edit and perhaps a peer review. I have corrected a few sentences, but the problems remaining are too numerous to list. There are also a lot of problems with word choice, particularly editorializing and unattributed "peacock" and "weasel" words. I did enjoy reading the article and recognize all the effort that went into it, but unfortunately this article simply is not close enough for me to hold it. Aaron north (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   questions on citations and OR are mainly related to problems with editorializing throughout the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues

• We need a pronunciation in the lead.
• Several sentences are written awkwardly and could be improved. This article really needs a thorough copyedit. WP:COPYEDIT
• There are a lot of problematic words and phrases throughout the article ("word choice" under GA requirement 1b). They should be replaced with neutral language and/or contained in an attributed quote. These words and phrases also cast the article's NPOV in doubt. MOS:OPED WP:PEACOCK WP:WEASEL

Seriously though Aaron, it could have been easily improved within the week, especially if two or three of us were copying editing. I strongly suggest you reopen this nomination as you haven't given us a chance to address what you think is problematic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)