Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status.
First, all of the cleanup banners and tags need to be fixed. There are two major cleanup banners, multiple dead links and over half a dozen fact tags from as long ago as August 2008. Major cleanup banners are a quick-fail criteria, but I am willing to give the article a couple of days to see if things are resolved. There are also multiple other areas that need references that aren't marked with citation needed tags, more dead links not marked by dead link tags (see here), and a lot of really short paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded to make the article more readable.
I will leave this review open for a few days to see if work is being completed on the above issues. If it is, I will then take another pass through the article to complete a full review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer ( talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As very little work has been done on this article (other than the reference formatting, with thanks for that going to Mcorazao) during the period of the review, I am failing this article's GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it back at GAN once the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status.
First, all of the cleanup banners and tags need to be fixed. There are two major cleanup banners, multiple dead links and over half a dozen fact tags from as long ago as August 2008. Major cleanup banners are a quick-fail criteria, but I am willing to give the article a couple of days to see if things are resolved. There are also multiple other areas that need references that aren't marked with citation needed tags, more dead links not marked by dead link tags (see here), and a lot of really short paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded to make the article more readable.
I will leave this review open for a few days to see if work is being completed on the above issues. If it is, I will then take another pass through the article to complete a full review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer ( talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As very little work has been done on this article (other than the reference formatting, with thanks for that going to Mcorazao) during the period of the review, I am failing this article's GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it back at GAN once the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer ( talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)