Talk:Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
This ESL finds it reasonable.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article and should not contain any new information. This leads fails that, as it does not provide an overview of major sections (such as formulation or criticism) and makes claims (for example, by mentioning Country Assistance Strategies) that do not appear in the body. Two external links are dead, please review and comment or fix. The article has next to no blue links outside lead (failure per WP:BTW). Too much of the content seems to be in a bullet format rather than prose. There is improper bolding (Public Finance Management (PFM)). There are plagiarism issues, for example at least one sentence in the goals section is a verbatim copy of [1]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Many references are missing an url allowing for a direct access.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Citation density is insufficient. Most if not all sentences should be referenced, whereas this article has only one-per para reference at first, and than degenerates to no references (content and criticism sections).

C. No original research:
Unreferenced criticism section raises an NOR red flag.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Does not answer some basic questions: when have those papers / strategies originated, and who created them? Where have they been used? Trends?

B. Focused:
What information is here seems on topic.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Criticism section is present, but no rebuttals, or praise.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars or such.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
No images, no problems.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
No images to speak of. Even if taking a picture of the paper in question is difficult, we could at least include a picture of the most closely associated agency or such. I'd like to see a discussion of what pictures could be included, and at least a rationale on why no picture is appropriate.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold awaiting responses. Please let me know if anything is not clear; please consider pinging me on my talk page to ensure I am notified ASAP. If something is addressed, please make a clear note of that both here and in the edit summary. If I am not notified of any changes on my talk page, I may not revisit this page before a week or so, when I will assess the progress made based on the comments here, and if no rationale have been presented for extra time, I'll pass or fail the article based on its state at that time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The week mark is close, and I am seeing no sign of life. This is disappointing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus. I will be making edits this evening. Thanks for your feedback.Cbielass (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. Please note that if there are no comments here, I'll rereview and pass/fail this article within a week of this comment. Please note, in particular, that this article will be failed if even one of the things I mentioned above is not fixed, so I strongly encourage you to ask questions if anything is not clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see some work was done few days ago, but no comments were left here. There has been significant improvement, but issues I raised at "broad in its coverage" above, "fair representation" and on images still remain as they are. First sentence/para in criticism is unreferenced. Some references are missing a date. I'll give the editors here a three day grace period to respond here. If I see no action here, I'll have to fail this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the above issues remain undressed, with no further comments here from the concerned editors, I am afraid I have little choice but to fail this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]