Talk:Bicycle helmet laws/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: four dead links found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead is too short, should probably be at least two paragraphs and should fully summarize the article, please check out WP:LEAD
 * Single sentences and short one sentence paragraphs should be consolidated
 * Prose is mostly reasonably good, but organization is poor, jumping from topic to topic without any coherence.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Four dead links tagged as noted above.
 * Citations should be consistent, would be best to use the appropriate the citation templates as listed at Template:Citation. If subscription is needed for journals that should be noted.
 * Accessible sources appear to be WP:RS
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Appears to contain mainly information from the English speaking world, and mostly the US. This is not comprehensive enough for a world wide encyclopaedia.
 * The map in the lead refers only to the United States.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Little coverage of opposition to control laws.
 * 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * One image used with tags and a caption, but see above under broad coverage.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is potentially an interesting article, but it lacks thorough and comprehensive coverage. The subject area is difficult to cover, it may be better to concentrate on one geographical area. Four dead links need to be fixed. The US-centric approach needs to be addressed if this is meant to be comprehensive. The structure of the article is poor, with too many short sections. On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no attempt to address these issues, so as eight days have passed, I shall not be listing at this time. If you do nominate for good article status, you need to respond to a review, address the issues raised and communicate with the reviewer. This is an important part of Wikipedia processes - communicating with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no attempt to address these issues, so as eight days have passed, I shall not be listing at this time. If you do nominate for good article status, you need to respond to a review, address the issues raised and communicate with the reviewer. This is an important part of Wikipedia processes - communicating with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)