Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey/GA1

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

Reviewer: King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * For criterion 1B: The lead should be about twice as long per WP:LEADLENGTH. Here are some specific problems:
 * "The 1709 borders were described as follows". Described by whom?
 * "George Washington knew that the next morning British forces would seize New Bridge Landing, which is only 2 miles north of his headquarters in Hackensack". Tense shift.
 * "and an architecturally notable Sikh gurudwara resides in Glen Rock". Who is he?
 * For criterion 2A: Mostly good, but the sources section seems redundant: the refs there are not used at all, or they are in the references section. Ref 177 should have a better title than "7".
 * For criterion 2B: Many paragraphs in "Geography" are unreferenced. The last three paragraphs of "County government" have no sources at all. "Points of interest" is mostly unreferenced. A paragraph in "Transportation" is unreferenced.
 * For criterion 3B: I think the "Community diversity" section should be consolidated and/or split into a new article. It is far too long as is.
 * For criterion 6B: A few too many images in the "Points of interest" section, maybe. A picture of one of the colleges/universities would be good in the education section.
 * This review is on hold for 7 days.
 * The review has now been failed.

Checklist

 * Well-written
 * The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Symbol support vote.svg
 * It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * Verifiable with no original research
 * It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * It contains no original research. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic. Symbol support vote.svg
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images.
 * Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Symbol support vote.svg
 * Overall. Symbol oppose vote.svg

Thank you for nominating, --Jakob (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest a decline of this GA, as this article is clearly not GA quality. Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've failed it. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything in the review. I might've left it open for another day or two, but the nominator doesn't seem to be active. --Jakob (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review. I realized even soon after submitting it for GA review that it would likely not qualify - the reason being that these county articles few and far between ever reach GA status. I believe it's an inherent part of their make-up and not a bad reflection on this article per se, which I feel is generally a high-quality article that informs the reader with useful and overall well-cited content. Castncoot (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)