Talk:Kingdom of Nri/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There were some instances of poor language. I gave the article a copy-edit, and I believe it is better now. The main problem is with the layout, however. The sections and paragraphs are generally far too short, which violates Layout and makes the article choppy to read.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The biggest problem with the article is with the lower part, and the heavy reliance on Anunobi. This book is not from an academic press or an academic author. The text subsequently bears witness to this, in the sense that the language is unencyclopaedic and non-NPOV; it seems to be praising and extolling the culture rather than giving a neutral description. There ought to be reliable academic sources on the subject.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Mostly, yes, though certain sections like Art and Economy could certainly be expanded.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See 2b above.
 * 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):
 * Though no requirement, the article would benefit enormously from a more detailed map, perhaps something like the one in Benin Empire.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Particularly the issue with WP:RS is serious, and will be hard to fix. Still, I will put the article on hold and check back in a week to see what has been done.
 * I see that a substantial amount of work has been done on the article since I reviewed it, and I believe it now qualifies for GA status. Lampman (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that a substantial amount of work has been done on the article since I reviewed it, and I believe it now qualifies for GA status. Lampman (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)