Talk:Independence Day (United States)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I will be doing it. Thanks. &mdash;  Yash! [talk] 14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose reads ok but not up to the mark. Bullets are discouraged. The sections "Observance" and "Unique..." should have the material in paragraphs rather than bullets.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * That is the major concern. References are a mess. Some lack accessdate, some work, some should have work in italics and more. There are dead links as well. Great things in the article are not cited. Thus, material cannot be verified. Each and every fact must have at least one reliable source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This is a problem as well. There is no section stating its cultural impacts or the security measures taken on the day. A lot can be added to the article on those topics
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No problems here
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images should be included in the prose. A separate section "gallery" is generally not preferred.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It was a premature nomination and the article is far from GA status. I suggest you work on the issues raised and take cues from Independence Day (Pakistan) and Independence Day (India). Once the problems are addressed it can be re nominated. I hope this gives an idea in general about what's wrong. Thanks! &mdash;  Yash! [talk] 20:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)