Talk:Wiltshire Regiment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four good sized paragraphs would be appropriate. The lead should summarize the entire article, without including new information.
   • There are a lot of really short paragraphs in the article, which make it choppy and harder to read. Could some of these be combined?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • Web references need to have publishers and access dates added in many cases.
   • There are a bunch of dead links in the references, see here.

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):

   • I believe the image File:Ginginpainting.jpg needs to specify the painter and the date (or approximate date).
   • Some of your image captions are quite long. Please work to make them more concise.
   • The images appear to be crowded towards the top half of the article, with text sandwiched between images and a general cluttered feeling. However, the bottom half of the article has only one image, and large blocks of text with no images are present. Perhaps move some of the images in the top part of the article to the bottom part?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The above is the result of my first pass through the article. Once work has begun on these (especially work on the publishers in web refs and removing the dead links), I will complete a more thorough review of source reliability and prose. Overall, it looks like a nice article, and it's obvious that you've put a lot of work into it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As no work has been completed on this article during the time period of the review, I am failing this article's GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it back at GAN when the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)