Talk:Hamdog/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * This article lacks almost every element in a good article. There are almost zero illustrations, there is no detail in the article and does not ever focus in at a single point on an topic. Below are a complete list of issues:
 * No illustrations
 * Article never focuses in on a concept
 * Article has many short basic paragraphs
 * Misuse of capital letters
 * Lacks references
 * Lacks complete sentences

I would recommend re-reading the criteria for good article status and re-submitting at a later time.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)