Talk:Kingman, Arizona/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Hi there, I am afraid that this article has quickfailed GA due to a number of serious infringements of the Wikipedia:good article criteria.
Issues preventing promotion[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- Most of the article is in a serious mess, including numerous single sentance paragraphs and "In popular culture", "famous residents" and "points of interest" sections, numerous in text weblinks and a string of other more minor problems.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- As well as an outstanding [citation needed] tag, this article also has few inline citations where they count especially in the hhistory section which is almost totally unreferenced. The references that the article does have are fine but are simply not enough.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- All sections, because they are poorly written fail to give context. All sections are too short and some, such as a discussion of the weather and geography are missing entirely.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- With such little context its unlikely that this is representative of all viewpoints.
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Thankyou and I am sorry the review was not more positive, if you disagree with my assesment then you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:GAR. I hope you have better luck next time, all the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)