Talk:European Union/GA1

GA Review
I have passed the article in accordance to Good Article Criteria as laid out below. Reading the article logs, I can see why the article was de-listed as a Featured Article for lack of references. While I do not feel the article has addressed that concern enough for FA status, I do believe it more then covers GA status as I will note below. 1. It is well written. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass 3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass 5. It is stable- Pass 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass If anyone has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. Agne 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Compelling and well written prose with no glaring violation of WP:MOS. Any overly technical jargon is clarified either in the article or wiki-linked.
 * For FA consideration you may want to review some of the section headings, in particular the titles in section 6. I say this not only for the benefit of being short and clear but also for the potential benefit of shortening the width of the table of contents. From a style view, the long white gap in the middle due to the width of both the info box and TOC is not very pleasing.
 * This was a crux issue with the FA-delisting and I think a large part of it is due to the variety of reference styles used in the article from in-line citations to mid-article external links (like in the Economic variation section) and then the books and links down at the bottom of the article. Overall you get the impression that the article is well referenced (which is why I passed it) but admittedly I found verification difficult without the benefit of more in-line citations (of which, there is the relatively small amount of 27). I would recommend that the editors here actively work to merge some of the other references into in-line citations.
 * The section Context — rationale for enlargement and future prospects and Main policies sections are areas of particular need for in-line citation reference.
 * The article has considerable breadth and makes ample use of content forks
 * Overall the article presents a balanced and neutral point of view about the European Union.
 * The article is a bit of a vandal target but the article's editors are quick with clean up.
 * The maps are excellent and I particularly like the image of the EU constitution and Treaty of Paris signing.