Talk:The Human Stain/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Review I shall do. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination[edit]
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 12, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Unfortunately, this one is not good article quality right now. I see the nominator made one edit to the page in the last 500 edits. The lede is too short, failing WP:LEAD. The article uses way too many blockquotes and quotations, failing WP:COPYVIO. The synopsis section is too short, failing WP:PLOTSUMMARY.
- 2. Verifiable?: Multiple mixes of citation styles, should be standardized with WP:CIT or pick one style and go with it. Harvard style citing should be broken out into a notes section.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Very short background section. No publication history info. Two sources in reception section when I'm sure there are many more sources.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Difficult to assess due to other failures, above.
- 5. Stable?: Appears reasonably stable.
- 6. Images?: File:Human stain.jpg rationale is okay.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sagecandor (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)