Talk:Teancum/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I am conducting this review. My first impression, unfortunately, is that the article falls significantly short of the GA standard, to the point of being subject to quickfail. I will consider this position and then either quickfail or move to a full review. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Overview - Unfortunately I am going to quick-fail this article, for the following reasons:
- (1) This article depicts a figure who is fictional, mythological or metaphorical as a historical figure. Your only sources in the article are the Book of Mormon, and authors citing the Book of Mormon. While I don't mean to disrespect a religion that means a lot to a large number of intelligent and good people, the Book of Mormon is not generally accepted as a reliable historical source. You need to either treat the article subject as being a mythological figure (see Zeus for a good example), or find reliable secondary sources that discuss the historical accuracy of his appearance in the Book of Mormon, who are able to draw on sources other than the Book itself.
- (2) This article is not sufficiently supported by secondary sources. Again, your only sources are the Book of Mormon, and two brief mentions of people quoting the Book of Mormon. While I have no doubt Teancum is notable, the sourcing currently in the article would not be enough to get you through AfD, let alone reach Good Article standard.
- (3) The article describes allegedly fictional elements in an in-universe style. The majority of the article is presented as a recitation of the story from the Book of Mormon as though it were a historical account.
- (4) Substantial sections of the article remain unreferenced, including at least one entire paragraph.
I am confident that given time this article could be improved to the standard of Good Article but right now it is only a C-class (I will grade it accordingly). Please consider the Good Article Criteria carefully before relisting this article, and please feel free to contact me for further elaboration or advice. - 03:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Result: Quick-failed.