Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA3
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There are numerous problems, most notably with referencing, and I believe these will take more than the usual hold period to address. Here are some of the major problems that I see:
- Three citation needed tags
- Six dead link tags
- One unreliable source tag
- "Who" tag in the Economy section
- Many refs missing basic information, such as titles, publishers and access dates (for web references).
- A sales site (references 53 through 57) is not a reliable reference and in this case the website doesn't even link to the proper page (perhaps the ad has been pulled?). Also, improper paraphrasing of the source in this section has led to the advertisement-like language of the source to bleed through, leading to a non-encyclopedic tone.
- What makes ref #19 (Bob Le-Roi) a reliable reference?
- In the Economy section, the external link should be turned into a reference, and there should be a summary of the census. Giving the reader a teaser and then directing them offsite for any real information is a no-no.
- Sealand noble titles - Why should the reader be interested in this information? There is no context, no analysis, no anything. At this point it reads like an advertisement.
- For an article of this length, WP:LEAD suggests 3-4 paragraphs of lead.
- A copyedit is needed, but the source issues need to be sorted out first, so I'm not going to go into detail on this item.
From a quick look at the history of the article, it appears that the nominator has never made an edit to this article. I would suggest reading WP:Good article criteria and working on the article with a view towards meeting those criteria. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing the article back at WP:GAN when it is in better shape. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)