Talk:Santa Maria, Bulacan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review. I should have a full review up within the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Watch out for "weasel words", including "apparently", "are considered", etc. These need to be carefully verified and sourced.
 * There are numerous lists of information that are indiscriminate, unsourced, and/or could be better presented as prose. For example, the entire Agriculture section needs to be reworked: properly sourced, lists and bullet points transformed into prose, etc.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This is the area where the article majorly fails the GA criteria. It is significantly under-referenced, with entire sections missing references. What references are in the article are generally incomplete, and in a few cases are simply bare urls.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image galleries are discouraged. Appropriate images should be placed throughout the article, and a link to Commons will suffice for the remainder.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * At this point, the sourcing and prose/list issues are too big for the article to be brought up to standard within the normal GAN period. Due to this, I am failing the article's GA nomination. The article may be renominated when the identified issues have been addressed. Because of the major issues already identified, I have not completed full checks of prose, image licensing, scope/focus or NPOV. Please make sure that these areas are also meet the GA criteria before renominating the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * At this point, the sourcing and prose/list issues are too big for the article to be brought up to standard within the normal GAN period. Due to this, I am failing the article's GA nomination. The article may be renominated when the identified issues have been addressed. Because of the major issues already identified, I have not completed full checks of prose, image licensing, scope/focus or NPOV. Please make sure that these areas are also meet the GA criteria before renominating the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)