Talk:Coboconk/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is probably correctly assessed as 'start-class' by Wikiproject Canada. It's a good start, and a good collection of notes for building a good article. But measuring this up against the good article criteria seems a bit premature at this point. There's quite a bit of work to be done (and more than just an incomplete demographics section, as previously noted by Floydian).


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose needs a lot of work. One example is in the first paragraph of the history section, which is really one long run-on sentence with four citations interspersed at various commas. Other parts of the article (see the last two "paragraphs" of history) are bits and pieces of information, but aren't really weaved together telling a story. Using the example of the last two paragraphs of history, that's written more like a timeline than an article section. "as well as in a 1926 novel." in the 'coverage in the media' section is a sentence fragment, and incomplete. Regarding the manual of style (MOS), the article really doesn't follow style guidelines. While I certainly wouldn't expect an article to follow all of the guidelines under Wikiproject Canadian communities, it should at least follow the ones that apply. The article's lead section is also too short. This section should be a good summary of the article. Please see WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The reference citations are mostly good and reliable, so there are few problems here. There is a minor issue with two unformatted (plain link) citations in the demographics section -- those should be converted to properly formatted citations.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article really isn't complete, even when taking into account that it's a small community with a population of 800 people. Try to fit content as best as applicable to the aforementioned Canadian communities guidelines. WP:USCITY and WP:UKCITIES guidelines may also help as well. One major thing that stands out is the lack of a government or governance section. The content of the services section should probably be split into actual government or municipal services as well as things that are actually businesses, which should go into an economy section. The attractions section is also very, very short -- another red flag for GA. The infobox doesn't have a location/geographical map indicating the location within Canada or Ontario, either.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * In its present state, I cannot see any major neutrality issues.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Most of the edits are by one user, so there really aren't issues with stability.
 * 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):
 * The images that are in the article are tagged and captioned appropriately, so the article meets image criteria. It might be nice to have an image of the smallest jail?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is clearly in an early stage of development, and not presently at GA standards. It appears that it was probably nominated for GA prematurely. "On hold" status is really for articles that are at least B-class and very close to GA, such that issues could be fixed within about two weeks or so. Unfortunately, I think there's much research and editing to be done, so I wouldn't be doing a editors a favor with that approach. However, the article can be renominated again once it meets the criteria. Please take a look at these issues and I hope to see the article renominated at some point in the future. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)