Talk:Mojave Desert/GA2

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 10:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Will add comments later.  Sounder Bruce  10:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 1, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The article needs heavy copyediting. Lines such as "Relatively, there is not much riverine activity" indicate a poor level of writing, while other sections aren't easy to understand for laymen. A few sections devolve into chains of links with no comments between them, making for an extremely tedious read.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Several paragraphs are still missing inline citations.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Most sections are far too undeveloped for a subject of this size and scope. The human development section is a measly paragraph about recent development but does not mention the historic development of the region, let alone the indigenous inhabitants.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The article is skewed towards recent events and thus leaves out some points of view.
 * 5. Stable?: Symbol support vote.svg Pass
 * 6. Images?: Far too many decorative images, but few that convey the size of the desert itself (perhaps a satellite view).

It's clear that this was a premature nomination and that the improvements made since the last nomination were not sufficient. I would suggest not nominating this article again until after consulting another venue such as peer review only after addressing the major scope issues raised.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.—  Sounder Bruce  04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)