Talk:SM North EDSA/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are quite a few issues with this article; I've highlighted the main ones below. If we can clear these us, I can go through in more detail. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1. 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.


 * "Incidents" section is simply four bulleted items at the moment; it should be rendered as a paragraph or similar
 * Similarly for the "Mall Anchors" section

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * Numerous gaps here. Large parts of the History section aren't referenced, including direct stats etc. Several other sections give references, but the references don't support the parragaphs - "Interior Zone (Annex 1)", "The Annex (Annex 2)" etc. are examples of these.
 * The article also relies very heavily on the mall's own website - the vast majority of citations come from here.

(c) it contains no original research.


 * The lack of citations at the moment means it would fail on OR.

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).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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.


 * The gallery doesn't fit with the wikipedia image use policy.