Talk:West Virginia/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I do not believe this article qualifies under the current Good Article guidelines:

• There are far too few in-text citations to reference all the material provided in this article. Specifically, there are number of instances when "hard facts" (i.e. dates, numbers, statistics, etc.) are left uncited, which is especially poor form.
• Per WP:EMBED, lists of information are typically frowned upon in prose
• The article also needs to go through a thorough copyedit to make sure that current prose is a good summary of West Virginia, leaving detailed information to the subarticles per WP:SUMMARY. Items like the trivia sections are particularly unworthy of remaining in a Good Article about a U.S. state.
• Numbers and their units need to be formatted per WP:NBSP
• External links in the text need to be transformed into actual citations, and the citations that do exist need to be formatted properly (i.e. at least a title, publisher, and access date for web references).
• The sections should be formatted per WP:STATE

I have no doubt that the article passed in 2006 when standards were much lower; however, the items list above should certainly be corrected if West Virginia is to remain a Good Article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since there has been no action taken on my comments (or even an acknowledgment of them), I have delisted West Virginia from the listing of Good Articles. When the above problems have been fixed, the article can be renominated for GA status. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)