GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking this article for review, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria at this time. The main problem is the significant lack of referencing, but there are also many other issues. Here are some more specific thoughts:
Faustus, I see that you nominated several other articles at the same time as this one. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, it does not appear that you edited the articles, or at least the ones that I checked. It is generally better for editors who have worked on a particular article to be the ones to nominate it, and it also often works best for new GA nominators to nominate one article at a time, so that they can see how the process works, get tips, and then apply their new knowledge to their other articles. The other articles that you nominated that I looked at have many of the same problems with a lack of referencing and poor layout and formatting. I would suggest withdrawing them (or all but one that you are really interested in working on), and perhaps work with another experienced editor, or at a process such as WP:Peer review, until you really understand the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer ( talk) 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking this article for review, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria at this time. The main problem is the significant lack of referencing, but there are also many other issues. Here are some more specific thoughts:
Faustus, I see that you nominated several other articles at the same time as this one. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, it does not appear that you edited the articles, or at least the ones that I checked. It is generally better for editors who have worked on a particular article to be the ones to nominate it, and it also often works best for new GA nominators to nominate one article at a time, so that they can see how the process works, get tips, and then apply their new knowledge to their other articles. The other articles that you nominated that I looked at have many of the same problems with a lack of referencing and poor layout and formatting. I would suggest withdrawing them (or all but one that you are really interested in working on), and perhaps work with another experienced editor, or at a process such as WP:Peer review, until you really understand the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer ( talk) 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)