Talk:Queenie (waterskiing elephant)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I see many issues:
 * See WP:LEAD how to build a summary of the content
 * Prose mistakes throughout the article
 * I think animals are always referred to "it". What is its gender?
 * Odd structure: sentence-long paragraphs, written like bullet items
 * "Pittsburgh Incident" section is acceptable, but the rest is not
 * There are dead links.
 * If there are no free images, you can upload a non-free file.--Tomcat (7) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This nomination was placed on hold over a month ago. A few days later, there were edits that combined paragraphs, but did little else. Given the failure to address all but one of the significant issues raised, I think it's probably time to conclude this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Failing per this. Wizardman  00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)