Talk:Kigo/GA1

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

A good article is—

Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2] (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

This articles fails many of the above criteria, specifically:

2b) There is only one citation in the whole thing., means:

i have no idea if 2c) is passed.

Also it has MOS problems: there is a lot of unneccesary bolding, and all the bullet points disrupt flow, the sections are out of order, and the inconsistancy and linkfarming mentioned on the talk page are worrying.

As the sourcing and rewriting problems seem to require a lot of work, i think it is uncontrovertial to say this is not a "Good article" according to our standards, so it must be delisted. It's an interesting topic, so i hope that subsequent improvment will be followed by renomination for GA.Yobmod (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist - I've no argument with your position. I will undertake to gradually improve the article, but I don't have the time to put in the necessary work to bring it up to GA standard in the short term.--Yumegusa (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)