Talk:2011 Australian Open/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AGK  [&bull; ] 12:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Noting that the writer's indef-blocked, but if the only concerns with the article are minor I can take a stab at it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also willing to help address concerns. Courcelles 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, I'll press ahead with the review. AGK  [&bull; ] 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 28, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: ❌ – The quality of writing within this article, and especially in the lead, is poor. The lead does not seem to provide an overview of the subject matter (as it should, per WP:LEAD).
 * 2. Factually accurate?: ✅ – No obvious inaccuracies, and sourcing is fine.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: ✅ – Covers most obvious aspects of the subject.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: ✅ – Article uses a neutral point of view throughout.
 * 5. Article stability? ✅ – Article is not subject to rapid changes or edit warring at present, and is not about a current event.
 * 6. Images?: ✅ – Good volume of images, spread sensibly throughout the article.

The quality of writing within this article is so poor as to be distracting to the reader. Even controlling for the allowance for not necessarily perfect prose that is written into the GA criteria, this article does not meet the requirements, and would require, in my view, a sizeable investment of effort if another GA nomination were to be successful.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— AGK  [&bull; ] 15:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)