Talk:Australian Secret Intelligence Service/GA1

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

Staring GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 17, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The artcile is reasonably well written
 * b (MoS):
 * There are a large number of redlinks. Redlinks are fine if the articles are going to be written, but they haven't been in 3 years. The bulleted list in Legislative changes affecting ASIS is not good. Please rewrite as prose.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * A large number of statements are not referenced at all. The citation format is not consistent thtroughout
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Alkl that can be checked are OK
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Is there material available about ASIS between 1954 & 1972?
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * tagged and licensed or with suitable rationale
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few concerns, Redlinks, referencing, is the article as broad as it could be in scope? On hold [forgot to sign - July 7 Jezhotwells]
 * It likes as if progress is being made. leave a note here if you need more time. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, very little has been done so I am going to de-list the article. When it has been improved please consider submitting at WP:GAN. If you consider my decision is faulty, please take to WP:GAR for community reassessmnet. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few concerns, Redlinks, referencing, is the article as broad as it could be in scope? On hold [forgot to sign - July 7 Jezhotwells]
 * It likes as if progress is being made. leave a note here if you need more time. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, very little has been done so I am going to de-list the article. When it has been improved please consider submitting at WP:GAN. If you consider my decision is faulty, please take to WP:GAR for community reassessmnet. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, very little has been done so I am going to de-list the article. When it has been improved please consider submitting at WP:GAN. If you consider my decision is faulty, please take to WP:GAR for community reassessmnet. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)