Talk:Obesity in Germany/GA1

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

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Working...

I don't believe that the article is ready to be a Good Article yet. My comments are below:

General comments: needs more "meat". It comes across as a list of bullets without any description. There may be more ways to expand on the subject, but this isn't my area of expertise, so I analyzed what was on hand and only spent a little time on trying to think of other ways that it could be expanded to be broad in its coverage (criterion 3) while beginning to address the comprehensiveness required of a featured article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?
 * a (prose): FAIL b (MoS):
 * As noted, the article is generally just a collection of bullets—in particular the "domestic statistics" section. It should consist of prose that links the information together and tells a story. Remember, its an encyclopedia article, not just a collection of information. The latter might be ok for a starter article, but not a GA (at least in my opinion). See some examples of featured articles for this type of prose and the way they tell a story—such as the Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. The quality required of an FA is greater than a GA, but reasonably well-written prose is still a requirement for a GA.
 * The "Blame" section is a good example of a bullet that needs to be expanded into a paragraph or more.
 * The lede should be a summary of the article. It covers a few items, but does not adequately summarize all of the sections listed in the article. See WP:lede.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a (references):PASS b (citations to reliable sources): (shaky) c (OR): PASS
 * Check your sources. Some of the news articles have authors. Lauren Streib is the author for the Forbes "World's Fattest Countries" article, for example. Is David W. Freeman a reliable source on the CBS News Blog site? If so, he should be listed as the author. If not, the reference should be removed.
 * I'm also concerned that all of the sources are online. Most seem to meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, but it should be possible to find some studies done on this topic (and your similar article on France). There may even be some studies mentioned in the listed sources. Try Google Scholar, although there are probably many ways to get studies. Some of the best and most relevant are probably in German, but if you are from Austria, that should not be a problem. You can list a German source on an English Wikipedia page. Just translate the title and list the language or use the "language" cell in the cite template. Or, you can just type it out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): FAIL  b (focused):
 * The standard for comprehensiveness of a GA is less than an FA. However, some of the sections—notably the one on causes—needs expansion.
 * It's reasonable to compare Germany with other European countries. But you'll want to consider WP:WORLDVIEW also. Consider combining the "other European countries" and "Germany's International Ranking" section into one section that adhere's to WP:WORLDVIEW. Domestic considerations seems out of place in between.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: PASS

5. It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: PASS

6. Is it 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):
 * Technically PASS, but…
 * Images are not strictly required, but are nice. It should be possible to find some images. Try checking some of the links in Public domain image resources.

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: FAIL.


 * I encourage you to continue improving this article. It would be worthwhile to seek a peer review also, as other editors will undoubtedly have more ways to improve the article beyond what I can offer. I look forward to seeing this as a Good Article in the future. And thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)