Talk:Canon EOS 100/GA1

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

Hi, I'm afraid I have to qucikfail this article. To bring it to GA level would likely require more time than the review process takes and the article needs thorough work. This means: the article as it is now mentions references, but it is not clear where they are used, please add inline references - articles that are unreferenced will not stand a good article review. To properly summarize the article the lead would have to be expanded. There are many short and choppy paragraphs and sections, the article has to have a more coherent style.

To improve the article, try to fulfill the B Class criteria first.

When you have addressed the issues and think the article meets the good article criteria you can renominate it. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article, although notable, covers quite a narrow topic. There are almost no other references to its technical specification other than Canon's own documentation and the specialist book I've added to the reference section. To try to anticipate calls for in-line citation requests, I added a comment to its talk page with a link to Wikipedia guideline on general references. This article would be made unreadable by adding in-line references, so, I suppose its GA nomination should be cancelled.--ML5 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have the books, then you have the page numbers and you can add references. How does that make an article unreadable I don't get. I'm going to add the article to Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations. Hekerui (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the talk page before you quickfailed it? Have you read Wikipedia guidelines on general references? It would be a lot of work to put specific page numbers against every single statement in the article. As there's only really two references, every statement would have two identical citations against it - that would be citing for the sake of citing. If there was some concensus about doing this, then I would, but I feel it would be against the guidelines on general references for narrow subjects.--ML5 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're unhappy you can resubmit. However, I had written down some other concerns apart from the references, don't forget them. Hekerui (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Resubmit? Nope. I wouldn't want people thinking I was kicking off an edit war. Maybe somebody might read this, reinstate the nomination, then see what other editors think. As I said, I'll go with the consensus. Ultimately, if nobody's interested, I'll forget about the whole GA thing.--ML5 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit war? How? And no one will read your link here. Resubmit the article yourself or it won't happen. I'm a single person, that means consensus makes no sense as an argument. You can of course let the GA thing go, it's your choice. Hekerui (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)