Talk:Better Government Association/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grammarxxx (talk · contribs) 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Doesn't adhere to MoS, including references.
- A. References to sources:
- No in-line citations: accessdate, author, work, ect...
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Majority of works cited is to the subjects webpage, not a RS.
- C. No original research:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Definitely not, this organizations been around for nearly 100 years and this is all there is?
- B. Focused:
- Too many minor details.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Impossible without RS.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I am quickfailing this article due to a lack of comprehensiveness and poor references that cannot be fixed within 7 days. This article was created yesterday by a new user, I suggest the user read over the good article criteria before nominating any other articles. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)