Talk:Golf/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. I will be reviewing Golf. Comments are welcome! MobileSnail 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

1. Has reliable sources
2. Is written neutrally
3. No valid cleanup tags
4. Is relatively stable with no edit wars Relatively, however some frequent vandalism from IPs.
5. Not specifically concerned with a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint

• Golf passes the quick fail criteria. The full review will be conducted soon. MobileSnail 17:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Full review

Here is the full review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: On Hold

Criteria to be met

1b Manual of Style

Several red links are included in the article, mainly in the Origin section. Generally, these are frowned upon. There are also several instances in the opening paragraph where italics are improperly used, such as in quotations like "playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes in accordance with the Rules". (Golf) in parenthesis shouldn't be italicized as well as rules of golf.

2c Original Research

Some original research being added by anonymous users lately. I would suggest that this article is semi protected to prevent anonymous users from vandalizing this article.

5 Stability

Article has had persistent vandalism from IP address users in the past 3 days. The article is not very stable and a semi-protection is needed.

• Comments
  • Article is written fairly well, however isn't ready to go right now. There is definitely great time and effort by it's leading editors put into it, however a few things are holding it back.
  • Three things need to happen before this article passes. 1) It needs to be semi-protected by an admin to prevent IP Address vandalism. 2)It needs to have all possible vandalism/original research removed. 3) A few issues with the manual of style, such as improper formatting of quotations, etc.
  • Therefore, this article is placed On Hold. I am giving the article a deadline of August 1st at noon UTC for the suggestions above to be met. Thank you and good luck! MobileSnail 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Milestones

Appealed for indefinate semi-protection. User name one (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Partially cleaned up possible Copy-vio.User name one (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinate semi-protection declined.User name one (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed every single redirect. I didn't count but there were about 30 :). User name one (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

temporarily fixed redlinks by linking them to wictionary which automatically makes them blue even though it doesn't have entries for them.username 1 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-review

Here is the second full review. Sorry it took me a couple extra days.

GA review (seehere for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate andverifiable.

   a (references): b (citations toreliable sources): c(OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images havefair use rationales): b (appropriate use withsuitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Fail

Final Comments

• The article has seen a good deal of improvement, however still has minor errors all over the article. I would strongly suggest a second Peer Review, and the article is in need of a major copyedit as well.

• Some examples of MOS errors throughout the article are:

• Redlinks in the "Origin" paragraph. I would suggest either creating these articles or changing the actual link to an existing article.

• The rest are just minor grammatical errors as well as improper wording as designated by the Manual of Style, such as foreign words like "paganica" not being italicized and vague thoughts.

• Unfortunately, I have failed the article due to these reasons. I believe it could pass after a couple weeks work, but wouldn't suggest a nomination again for another month or two. Thank you and good luck! MobileSnail 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)