Talk:Edelman (firm)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this article's nomination for GA status. There are numerous problems, most notably with referencing, that prevent the article from being GA status at this time. Here are my thoughts on the biggest problems:


 * There is a stack of references on the talk page that could be used to improve and expand the article without having to depend on unreliable sources and sources from Edelmen itself.
 * What makes ref #2 (Answers.com) a reliable source?
 * What makes ref #4 (Funding Universe) a reliable source?
 * Many of the refs are missing information, such as publishers and access dates for web references.
 * Second paragraph of the Walmart section needs a reference.
 * The lead should be a summary of the body, so there should not be information presented in the lead that is not presented in the body.
 * Noteworthy clients section - A listing of clients in no way helps the reader: there needs to be some context. What did Edelmen do for these clients?
 * Overall this article reads like a bunch of disconnected facts that have been tossed into the article with little regard for organization or arrangement. Further context would be useful in the majority of the article.

I see that the nominator has not made any edits to the article in almost two years. I would suggest they read the WP:Good article criteria and rework the article with regards to these criteria. I look forward to seeing this article back at WP:GAN after the issues above have been addressed! Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dana. Unfortunately out of the huge list of possible references on the Talk page the O'Dwyers all require logins, the PRWeek articles are all broken links and some of the other articles only briefly mention Edelman in a quote with nothing of encyclopedic value. I'll go through these and see what I can do thoughCorporate Minion (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)