Talk:Incense trade route/GA1

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


 * Delist.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Prose is choppy, consisting of random assorted pieces of information which have been assembled, but not yet joined together. This article feels like the base notes toward an article rather than the finished article itself. There are charts, and images thrown in, in a messy clutter, and huge quotes. One section, "Present status", consists of two big blocks of official citations introduced by two grammatically odd sentences. On the whole little is easy learned by the general reader.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * MoS. Layout is cluttered, messy, off-putting and unprofessional. The lead does not summarise the main points of the article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Notes section appears to mix citations and notes, and the References sections appears to mix texts used as sources and texts listed as suggested "further reading". Could do with clarifying and/or tidying up.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Major aspects. Little information is given, so basic coverage is inadequate, let alone major. See Silk Road, which is far more detailed, but still not yet a Good Article.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that the major contributor to this article is no longer active on Wikipedia, so I am going to pause the review here. I shall put the review on hold for seven days to see if anyone is willing to step forward and start working on the issues. My assessment is that the article needs considerable work in terms of research, development and writing, to bring it to GA status. The topic is richer, wider and deeper than appears at first glance. However, I would be willing to keep the review open and work with anyone who wants to improve the article. If there is no reasonable response in seven days I will delist.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)