Talk:Strensham services/GA1

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

I'd be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

Overall Review

 * Hmm, while reading the article the first flag that went up in my mind was notoriety. After reading I went to the article talk page and noted that this article has been deleted twice already due to lack of notoriety.  Below are my specific issues with this article on top of the notoriety:
 * 1) References should have at least a publisher included. See WP:CITE for more info on formatting references.
 * 2) Reference 7 does not talk about displaying point totals on the cards though you indicate that in the article.
 * 3) I assume the "Birgmingham Evening Mail" is a journal or newspaper of some sort. This needs to be italicized in the references section.
 * 4) You wikilink toilets, is this really necessary?
 * 5) Comprehensiveness is an issue. It is an incredibly short article.  Are there any notable events that have taken place here?  What about revolving around the air ambulance?  The argument could be made that there isn't anything else to say about it.  Well that's fine but it doesn't have to be GA then.
 * 6) I know the deletion issue has been hashed over and this isn't the forum to go over that issue. I will say that I don't feel as though it meets the GA criterion specifically comprehensiveness.  If you disagree you can certainly renominate and have another reviewer look at it.  H1nkles (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, I have converted your bullet points to a numbered list to I can easily refer to it.


 * I'll discuss notoriety in #7
 * I have now included publisher in all sources where appropriate
 * The section where this is referred to is in the full article, which can be checked by providing an e-mail address and postcode (I'm sure you could enter fake ones to access this, as they do not seem to verify they are correct).
 * Birmingham Evening Mail is a newspaper, it is displayed by the publisher parameter in the cite news template, so I presume that is correctly formatted
 * Removed the wikilink (infact I have moved and re-written that section)
 * I have further expanded the article, including a particularly notable event
 * I am not sure why you have failed the article on comprehensiveness, the criteria relating to this is:




 * This article addresses the main aspects of this topic and doesn't go into unnecessary detail. You seem to have focussed on the length of an article, yet the Good article criteria page does not specify a minimum length. I can see no reason why a "comparatively short" article can't be a good article. Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria has a bit of discussion based on this point.


 * I ask that you reconsider your review based on the above, but if you do not wish to change your mind, please do not be offended if I have another reviewer give it a go! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinions and for taking my suggestions in good faith. I reviewed the suggested link and the discussion regarding amending the criteria.  I agree that length cannot be the only measuring stick of criterion 3.  You've added a notable event, which the article was sorely in need of.  As such i would reconsider the review but the article has been failed and I think it would screw the bots up too much to reverse the fail, I think you will need to renominate.  There is currently a backlog drive ongoing so you should have not problem getting a new reviewer.  I'm also curious to see what someone else would have to say on this review.  H1nkles (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)