Talk:Cheese/GA1

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

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, due mainly to issues with references and referencing. Here is a list of some of the issues that I found on a scan through this article:


 * Significant under-referencing. There are several sections that are completely unreferenced, and most sections are at least partially unreferenced.  There is a references-needed banner in one section that has been in place since November 2007, and a fact tag that has been in place since October 2007.
 * Lists are discouraged by the MOS. Where possible, they should be turned into prose.  This is specifically applicable to the lists in the Types and Health and nutrition sections.
 * Short paragraphs should be avoided when possible. Paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
 * The formatting of your references needs quite a bit of work. If you are going to use a split reference format for books, please do it for all books, rather than just some like you have now.  Web references should be formatted with the title providing the link, rather than having a bare link.  Also, web references all must have publishers and accessdates, and all web references must have links (see current ref 42, Harper, for an example of this).  All of your web references should be formatted the same way.  I would suggest using the cite web template as an easy way to do this, but it is your choice - they simply must be consistent.

These are the issues that I saw in a quick scan of the article. The presence of cleanup banners that have been in place for almost a year are enough by themselves for a quick fail. I would suggest doing some hard work on the referencing and references of this article, completing a thorough check of the prose, and then re-submitting for GAN. Please drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)