Talk:Ping An Finance Centre/GA1

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Review to come. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 10, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: This article is written very choppily. The formatting and naming of the sections is askew, many of the sections should be subsections or simply subsumed into other sections. They also need expansion.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Many claims and sentences, even some entire sections, don't have proper citations or references. All claims need to be adduced by valid sources.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: As touched upon earlier, many sections seem incomplete. Alot of information is lacking. For a building of this scale and scope, more info is out there. It needs to be incorporated into the article. The lead must also be more representative, and alot longer. Also anything mentioned in the lead must be mentioned in the body.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Seems fine here.
 * 5. Stable?: Yes.
 * 6. Images?: All of them check out.

Regretfully, I have to quick fail this article, given the plethora of hurdles to reaching GA status that loom in front of it. Hopefully we will see this article back again on the nominations page, closer to GA readiness. It definitely is a fantastic building, so I personally would like to see this article improved. Keep at it. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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.—