Talk:Queenie (waterskiing elephant)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I see many issues:

See WP:LEAD how to build a summary of the content
Prose mistakes throughout the article
I think animals are always referred to "it". What is its gender?
Odd structure: sentence-long paragraphs, written like bullet items
"Pittsburgh Incident" section is acceptable, but the rest is not
There are dead links.
If there are no free images, you can upload a non-free file.--Tomcat (7) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination was placed on hold over a month ago. A few days later, there were edits that combined paragraphs, but did little else. Given the failure to address all but one of the significant issues raised, I think it's probably time to conclude this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failing per this. Wizardman 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]