Talk:Bangkok/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Article is not particularly well written. A lot of scruffy paragraphs which are not concise. History is not adequate.


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Considering it is a capital city sourcing in parts is poor. Its uses many poor quality sources and entire paragraph unreferenced.


 * C. No original research:
 * There are entire paragraphs which are unsourced and look as if somebody living in the city wrote them.


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * The article is very long as expected but it needs a major injection of quality and to be better written more/concise in parts.


 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems I can see with neutrality


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm failing this as I feel the problems with it are too numerous to make it worth putting it on hold. The prose is not the quality of a GA. Many paragraphs are unsourced and contain badly written text. Better quality sources could be used to write this article. At present I feel it has quite a long way to go before reaching GA. Start focusing on comprehension/concision. History section is not adequate for such a major city. Look in google books and try to replace a lot of the sources and source/improve the quality of text for the unsourced parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)