Talk:Geert Wilders/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is far too short. It should be at least four times the current length, and summarize the article. See WP:LEAD.
 * The infobox should not use abbreviations for parties, since no-one outside the Netherlands has the slightest clue what they are.
 * Do not put organizations, such as school, in quotation marks.
 * Many wikilinks are repeats of previous links. In particular, VDD and Bolkenstein seem to be consistently linked.
 * Common words, such as assistant, do not need to be wikilinked.
 * Avoid making in-line interwiki links. Instead, allow a red link (this is permitted for GA articles) or even better: create a stub.
 * It would be more logical that his early political career with VVD was in the 'political career' section.
 * Six years of membership in parliament is covered in three sentences. Surely there must be more to say about him than that. What issues did he work on? Which committees dis he serve on?
 * 'Recently' is never to be used on Wikipedia, since it is a highly subjective term.
 * Use the English names for parties.
 * 16 billion whats? I preseume euros&mdash;so stick in a '€'.
 * Newspapers are to be in italics.
 * First it states that the party has one member, then that it has none.
 * The 2006 election is illogically covered at the end of two successive paragraphs.
 * De-link all dates.
 * "a sort of world tour" sounds funny. Either it is a world tour, or it is not. If it is not, find a more precise description.
 * There are a lot of very short paragraphs. These should be merged to create larger paragraphs to aid the reader.
 * It would be much more logical if the 'personal life' section came right after the 'early life and career' section, since they are closer connected. This would also allow the 'political views' section to come after 'political career', easing the flow of the text.
 * Dutch–Hungarian uses an endash, not a hyphen. The same goes for numberic ranges (e.g. 5–15%).
 * Avoid contractions (e.g. would't shoud be was not)
 * Instead of writing "Dutch intelligence agency, the AIVD", use "General Intelligence and Security Service"
 * Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
 * 'At one point' is very vauge. When was it?
 * Stick to double quotation marks throughout the text for consistency, unless quoting within a quote.
 * "Wilders has, in the eight years he has served in the Dutch Parliament," is problematic, because as soon as he has served more than eight years, the sentence must be rewritten. Just remove the 'eight years' bit.
 * When using a single and double quotation mark after each other, use '" to tweak their readability.
 * Why are Appa's comments in the 'political view' section, and not in the critisism section?
 * Use an emdash (&mdash;), not a hypen (-), for punctuation.
 * The Qur'an is spelled both 'Qur'an' and 'Koran'. Stick to one; I believe the former is the more common (which dictates what we use on Wikipedia), though either are common enough to be permitted.
 * What role did Wilders have in the film? Producer, director, or did he produce, direct, start, film, edit and write the whole film all by himself?
 * al Qaeda is inconsequently spelled with and without a hyphen.
 * First Amendment of what? If it is the Consitution of the United States, state that. Also, describe what the First Amendment actually involves, since most non-Americans have not the slightest clue.
 * Refer to the United Kingdom as such, no as the 'UK'.
 * Dates are inconsequently both using US and UK syntax.
 * 'Home Office' needs wikilinking.
 * Labor Party and Heathrow Airport need to be capitalized (they are proper nouns). Also, refer to it as 'London Heathrow Airport', since many people do not know what city Heathrow serves.
 * Organisations are not to be in italics, even if they are not notable enough to be linked. If the organizations are notable enought that they may one day have an article, wikilink them.
 * Use straight, not curly, quotation marks.
 * Currencies are to be denoted by their symbol (€, if unambiguous) or by their ISO code.
 * 'law and order', 'Theo van Gogh', 'Hungarian', 'Queensbury', 'Terry Sanderson', 'City Journal' (twice) and 'The Telegraph' all link to disambiguation pages.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is normally presumed that a reference is for all sentences since the last reference. Repeating the same ref for each sentence should be unnecessary.
 * References come after punctuation.
 * Ref 17, 19, 20, 25, 48, 51, 73 and 81 are dead, according to this tool.
 * Never, ever, ever use ibid on Wikipedia. If a new reference is stuck in the middle, the whole referencing gets wrong.
 * Some news articles do not have publishing dates.
 * The referencing format seems a bit funny. Normally, references start with the author, followed by the date, then the title and then publishing and access information. I would highly recommend using the cite templates, though this is not required. All online links need accessdate parameters.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * How relevant is his hair color?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * For a highly controversial person, this would normally seem to be a very difficult criterion to meet. However, the challenge is brilliantly executed, and I see no apparent POV issues in the article. It passes the gold standart: it is impossible for a reader to know the POV of the author(s).
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * Image:Logo PVV.png cannot be used in this article. Logos can only be used under fair use on articles about the organization themselves (even if they have only one member).
 * Do not force image sizes. Use 'upright' on portrait-aligned images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. If all issues are acted upon, it should pass. Due to the high controversy of the article, it is a good piece of work. Arsenikk (talk)  22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am passing the article as good. Congratulations! However, there are sections that need some copyediting, and the lead could to with some refinement. For instance, stating his fathers questionable ancestry in the second line may be a considered a POV. However, it is good enough for GA, but perhaps not balanced enough to the fine touche of FA. Also, I have removed all the external links, since none of them actually meet the criteria External links. Arsenikk (talk)  23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not force image sizes. Use 'upright' on portrait-aligned images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. If all issues are acted upon, it should pass. Due to the high controversy of the article, it is a good piece of work. Arsenikk (talk)  22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am passing the article as good. Congratulations! However, there are sections that need some copyediting, and the lead could to with some refinement. For instance, stating his fathers questionable ancestry in the second line may be a considered a POV. However, it is good enough for GA, but perhaps not balanced enough to the fine touche of FA. Also, I have removed all the external links, since none of them actually meet the criteria External links. Arsenikk (talk)  23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)