Talk:Cross Fell/GA1

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

In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 28, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * Two of the seven links provided in the References section are dead.


 * Certain parts of the article read like a tourist brochure, the last paragraph of Routes to Cross Fell summit section, for instance.


 * Significant parts of the article are uncited. Where did the geological informaton come from, for instance? "In some years, lying snow has been known to persist until July and fresh snowfall in June (mid-summer in the Northern Hemisphere) is common." Who says so?


 * The last half of Routes to Cross Fell summit, about one third of the article, is uncited.


 * What makes the the Kirkland Cottages site a reliable source?


 * I note the discussion above about the inclusion of people in the photographs. Several of the images look more like holiday snaps than suitable illustrations for an encyclopedia article.


 * I am unconvinced that the article covers the major topics of its subject adequately. That Cross Fell is an SAC is mentioned almost as an afterthought, and the presence of the radar installation is only briefy mentioned (and uncited) in the lead, which ought to be a summary of the article in any event.


 * "One may then follow the Way up a gentle slope to the summit." Some copyediting is required to avoid the use of personal pronouns.


 * There are too many images for the size of the article.


 * The infobox contains two metric measurements, only one of which has an imperial equivalent. There should be imperial equivalents given throughout the article.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)