Talk:Lhasa/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  18:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is short of the good article criteria. I will make a rought review to show the main areas which need to be improved. To improve the articles, I would encourage reading the applicable guidelines, collaborating with an experienced editor, or nominating for peer review (see WP:PR).

I am therefore failing the article for not complying with criterion 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 4 and 6b. Arsenikk (talk)  18:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * There is a lack of balance between the sections. Culture does not consist only of "music and dance", and education does not consist of a single university.
 * Paragraphs consist of multiple sentences, while the article has many single-sentence paragraphs.
 * Avoid subjective terms like "graceful".
 * The prose consists a lot of unnecessary repeating. For instance the paragraph under architecture does not explain what the for mentioned sites are, it keeps repeating prose instead of creating natural continuations, and the use of the term "many" is very vague.
 * There are too many images, they tend to "sandwich" the text (any part of text should have images only on one side), they should not have forced image sizes, and they should not be placed in the reference section. See WP:IMAGE
 * Large parts of the article are not referenced.
 * Some of the references are not suitably formatted, see WP:REF.
 * Of the external links, only the two first plus the top map are appropriate, the other are off-topic.