Talk:Copenhagen/GA2

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am going to fail this article's nomination for GA status. The most serious issue is the sourcing, but there are also quite a few other problems:


 * There is a significant amount of unsourced information. Some of it is marked with citation needed tags, much of it is not. Statistics, opinions, quotes, etc. need references. This is the biggest issue with the article, and it will take the longest to fix.
 * 24 (!!!) dead links, see here for details. Some (but not all) are already marked with dead link tags.
 * Quite a few probably unreliable references (These are examples, found during a quick look. The number of dead links and the missing information in many refs makes it much more difficult to check reference reliability.):
 * #6 (Waymarking)
 * #17 (ageofsail.wordpress.com)
 * #73 (Tivoli Gardens)
 * #85, 149 (TripAdvisor)
 * #113 (Virgin Vacations)
 * Many refs need additional information. All web refs should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least, and a language specified if the ref is not in English. Book references should have publishers, ISBNs, and pages are always a good thing to have - they are required at FAC if you plan to take the article that far.
 * The weighting of the history section seems off. This is a city that has been in existence since the 12th century, and yet half the history section is focused on the last 75 years. This section needs to be rewritten to provide a broader picture of what has happened in the city over the past eight centuries, a better chronology could be given, and the sourcing needs work.
 * Notable residents - NO sources!! What is the criteria for inclusion in this list?
 * Standardize to one variety of English - I see both meter and metre, for example, as well as recognize (American) and defence (British).
 * Text should not be sandwiched between two images. This happens in several places throughout the article.

Overall, this article is quite a ways from good article status. I would suggest the nominator (who, as far as I can see, has made no edits to the article) work on this article with an eye towards proper and complete sourcing, serviceable prose, and basic MOS compliance. Although the article is in decent shape for one on a city of this size, it still needs quite a bit of work before it meets the good article criteria. If you have any questions, please let me know, Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)