Talk:History of the Netherlands/GA1

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

Initial comments
Commencing review. BlackJack | talk page 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick scan to see if there any fundamental issues and can report as follows on the quickfail criteria:
 * The article completely lacks reliable sources – it doesn't completely lack them but there are only 17 and that is inadequate; so this is going to be a problem
 * The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – cannot see any evidence of POV at this stage
 * There are correctly applied cleanup banners, including, but not limited to ... or similar tags – not applicable
 * The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars – not applicable
 * The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint – not applicable

So, unless I find POV when I read the article in depth, the only major problem is the shortage of citations. I do not think it will help anyone to quickfail the article on that basis so I will place tags as I read through it. Unfortunately, this does mean the article will probably fail GA but at least I can highlight where work is needed.

I do have another problem which is that I have seen several examples of unsatisfactory prose such as "Julius Caesar and his empire conquered Gaul". I will try to improve prose, grammar and spelling as I work through the review but it depends on the scale of the problem.

Otherwise, the article seems well-served by images and there is plenty of linkage. Not sure if it should have more categories and I will look into that.

Watch this space. BlackJack | talk page 12:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Report
The article fails GA.

I have made comments above about the poor quality of the prose in many areas and about the shortage of citations. The article also fails because the lead does not adequately summarise the content.

Not only does the lead contain poor prose, it is at times divorced from the main content. For example, the first paragraph refers to the Roman province of Gallia Belgica and this is not mentioned anywhere in the main text. What is needed is for someone to rewrite the lead to provide consistency by accurately summarising the article.

Using the good article criteria, the article rates as follows:
 * 1(a) – the prose is generally poor and several sections need to be edited to ensure clarity and readability
 * 1(b) – with 1(a) in mind, attention to WP:WTA will assist; the lead needs to be completely rewritten as described above; the layout is satisfactory but should be considered if extensive changes to prose are made; there is no jargon to speak of; the fiction and list components are not applicable
 * 2(a) – sources listed are not in accordance with the guide to layout
 * 2(b) – there are only 17 citations and this is insufficient as citations are needed throughout
 * 2(c) – there doesn't appear to be any OR
 * 3(a) – satisfactory in terms of its scope
 * 3(b) – focus is generally good and it doesn't delve into unnecessary detail, but ensure attention to 1(a) and 1(b) does not impact this
 * 4(.) – the article is neutral
 * 5(.) – the article is stable
 * 6(a) – copyright and usage of the images seem to be in order
 * 6(b) – the images are appropriate but, as per 1(a), some of the captions could be improved

I considered placing the article "On Hold" for a time while citations are provided and the necessary improvements are made to the lead and the prose, but I have decided to "Fail" it. I notice that the nominator is new to the article and has only made a few recent edits so his commitment remains uncertain. I cannot identify any editor who is a regular, let alone main, contributor. This leads me to suspect that the commitment is not there and so the improvements will not be done in a reasonable timeframe.

I think the cause of the article's problems is this lack of committed editors because it has been receiving occasional edits from all and sundry with no one to take on the mantle of a co-ordinator. The inconsistency between the lead and the content is a reflection of that situation.

For what it is worth, I will keep the article in my own watchlist and make edits as and when. It has at least interested me in the subject when previously I had only a superficial knowledge of Dutch history. BlackJack | talk page 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)