Talk:Denise Chong/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Consider putting a photo as GA criteria suggests photo. Spevw (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly written, in good prose with correct spelling and grammar[edit]

Grammar and spelling OK, writing style acceptable. Article needs an infobox such as Template:Infobox Person or appropriate variant. The lead is very spare at only one sentence, needs expansion to summarise article. Early life and schooling need some expansion, eg which high school?, information about family, religion, etc. Background, what were formative influences? The Publications (or better Published Works) section should be laid out in the customary style for articles about writers as that appears to be her primary attribute. The Publications section should be towards the bottom, the Ongoing Contributions section contaions material that should be in Biographical section. Please read and understand WP:MOS. Lokk at other good artciles to get an idea. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a (prose): b (MoS):

Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources[edit]

Article relies heavily on tertiary sources, mainly the The Canadian Encyclopedia. Much of the content is either directly copied or slightly paraphrased. This is not acceptable and leads to immediate failure of Good Article Review. Please read and understand {{WP:RS]]. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Broad in coverage of the topic without unnecessary digressions[edit]

Not broad, career as economist needs further expansion as does early life. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a (major aspects): b (focused):

Written from a neutral point of view[edit]

The article appears to be written from a neural point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair representation without bias:

Stable, with no ongoing edit wars[edit]

No evidence of edit warring, no discussion on talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No edit wars etc.:

Compliant with image use policy[edit]

No images used so does not apply. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

This article needs considerable work to bring it up to GA standard. I will re-rate it as Start but fail GAR. Please renominate when it has been improved. Should probably be re-nominated under the Literature category. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Fail: