Talk:Queens/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 06:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am afraid that I will have to quick-fail this nomination. There are significant problems with the article, such as large chunks of unreferenced prose, citations to unreliable and/or dead sources, fragmented arrangement of content in sections which comes off as random presentation of facts vs. a cohesive representation of sub-topics, and a lack of summary style coverage in almost all sections despite of the article's size (for instance, the "History" section jumps from 1905 to 2012 within two paragraphs after three paragraphs that are dedicated to the events of 1894–1899). The article will require a lot of work before it can get close to meeting the good article criteria, and I would advice the nominator to study examples of existing good articles on the topic of cities to get a clearer picture of what the article should strive to emulate. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * For a clearer idea on where it needs improvement. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * For a clearer idea on where it needs improvement. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * For a clearer idea on where it needs improvement. — The Most Comfortable Chair 11:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For a clearer idea on where it needs improvement. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 11:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)