Talk:Toki Pona/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment following a request shown in this diff.[1] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article reads more like a manual of how to use the language than an encyclopaedia article about it. Suggest sever pruning to focus on commentary about it from independent reliable sources, rather than over reliance on primary sources.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Many sections, e.g. Provenance are completely unreferenced

   Inconsistent citation formatting, please use inline citation templates.

   Much use of primary sources is made. This may seem inevitable but it does raise the serious question of notability.

   A large number of personal websites are used as sources, there are only four or five reliable sources used.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As mentioned above too much detail, summary style should be used.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appeasr somewhat promotional at times.

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):

   I don't think that File:Toki Pona Washer Guidelines.jpg adds any encyclopaedic information to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am inclined to delist but I will notify major contributors and place on hold. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

   OK, no-one has stepped forward to clean it up so I am de-listing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• As a major writer of the article, I must say that it doesn't feel particularly GA to me. More fun than encyclopedic. kwami (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)