Talk:Education in Serbia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The prose needs work. It is quite choppy, and ungrammatical in places. For example, "for getting a work" is one spot that jumped out at me.
   • The article is way too listy and choppy. Paragraphs should flow, and most should be at least three sentences. The multiple short sections should be combined in several places to create a cohesive narrative. In many places the bullet points can and should be turned into prose.
   • The lead needs to be expanded; WP:LEAD recommends two or three paragraphs for an article of this length.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The article is severely lacking in references. Multiple entire sections are unsourced, including statistics and potentially controversial statements.
   • References should not be bare links. Titles at least should be provided, and publishers, access dates and other information is desirable.
   • The lack of references makes it hard to know if there is original research in the article, and the lack of titles/authors/publishers, especially for foreign language sources, makes it difficult to judge reliability.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • The article needs additional coverage or context in quite a few areas. For instance:

   • I find it hard to believe that a 1000 year history of education can be properly summarized in four very short paragraphs (and again, consecutive two sentence paragraphs are not a good thing).
   • Multilateral agreements section - This section needs context. Why are these agreements important? What, if anything, did they change about education in Serbia? Also, these four points could easily be given in prose, rather than bullet points.

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):

   • While images are not required for GA status, if they are available they should be used. Are there no pictures of Serbian schools? Colleges? Students? Classrooms?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. The severe lack of references, combined with the listy-ness, lack of context, choppy-ness and poor prose, are too severe, in my opinion, to be corrected within the usual timeframe of GA. I would suggest that the nominator, before renominating, take some time to restructure the article a bit, work on the referencing, improve the lead and history sections and comb through the prose. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)