I've reviewed the article against the good article criteria and unfortunately the article isn't at a GA standard at this time. I'll list some of the issues below:
- The lead does not summarise the article, per WP:LEAD (this is a GA requirement)
- Several links to disambiguation pages
- Several dead links
- {{ citation needed}} tags that have been in place for over a year
- There is a mixture of different variations of English. That should be consistent.
-
WP:MOS problems such as:
- The are some words bolded that shouldn't be
- citations should come directly after punctuation, with no space (like this. [1] Not like this, [2] or this [3].)
- Per WP:HEADING, section headings shouldn't start with articles unless absolutely necessary. One example is "The Reign of Terror (1793-1794)". The article's called Reign of Terror (despite the error in the "main article" link) so there's no need for "The" in the heading.
- References should contain enough information to comply with WP:V. They need (where available) title, author, date of publication, retrieval date (for online sources), page numbers and isbns for book sources. Some of the references here have no information at all, some are bare URLs. Book titles should be in italics, not quotes. Non-print sources such as the BBC should not be in italics.
There are also some automated suggestions available. I haven't really commented on the content of the article. When you've addressed the issues above, I'd strongly recommend requesting a peer review before another GA nomination, especially as there have been NPOV concerns about the article in the past (and I can imagine an article like this being a future target for disputes). If you don't agree with this assessment, you can list the article at Good Article reassessment. Let me know if you have any questions.-- Beloved Freak 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the article now addresses all of these points. 185.251.11.193 ( talk) 19:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article against the good article criteria and unfortunately the article isn't at a GA standard at this time. I'll list some of the issues below:
- The lead does not summarise the article, per WP:LEAD (this is a GA requirement)
- Several links to disambiguation pages
- Several dead links
- {{ citation needed}} tags that have been in place for over a year
- There is a mixture of different variations of English. That should be consistent.
-
WP:MOS problems such as:
- The are some words bolded that shouldn't be
- citations should come directly after punctuation, with no space (like this. [1] Not like this, [2] or this [3].)
- Per WP:HEADING, section headings shouldn't start with articles unless absolutely necessary. One example is "The Reign of Terror (1793-1794)". The article's called Reign of Terror (despite the error in the "main article" link) so there's no need for "The" in the heading.
- References should contain enough information to comply with WP:V. They need (where available) title, author, date of publication, retrieval date (for online sources), page numbers and isbns for book sources. Some of the references here have no information at all, some are bare URLs. Book titles should be in italics, not quotes. Non-print sources such as the BBC should not be in italics.
There are also some automated suggestions available. I haven't really commented on the content of the article. When you've addressed the issues above, I'd strongly recommend requesting a peer review before another GA nomination, especially as there have been NPOV concerns about the article in the past (and I can imagine an article like this being a future target for disputes). If you don't agree with this assessment, you can list the article at Good Article reassessment. Let me know if you have any questions.-- Beloved Freak 22:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the article now addresses all of these points. 185.251.11.193 ( talk) 19:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)