GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SNUGGUMS ( talk · contribs) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This should be an interesting review. I plan on having my review up within a week.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but there are too many dead links for this to be a GA. Failing as a result. There's other issues as well. Sources like "Daily Beast" and "newsminer.com" seem questionable while sources like "fromforum", "Zap2It", "Radar Online", and "Huffington Post" aren't reliable. I see "citation needed" and "not in citation given" tags, which are not good. Be sure there are no unsourced statements when preparing an article for a GA nomination in the future. Other issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
DO NOT renominate without thoroughly checking the referencing and layout. Best of luck getting this to GA in the future. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: SNUGGUMS ( talk · contribs) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This should be an interesting review. I plan on having my review up within a week.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but there are too many dead links for this to be a GA. Failing as a result. There's other issues as well. Sources like "Daily Beast" and "newsminer.com" seem questionable while sources like "fromforum", "Zap2It", "Radar Online", and "Huffington Post" aren't reliable. I see "citation needed" and "not in citation given" tags, which are not good. Be sure there are no unsourced statements when preparing an article for a GA nomination in the future. Other issues include, but are not limited to, the following:
DO NOT renominate without thoroughly checking the referencing and layout. Best of luck getting this to GA in the future. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)