Talk:Sunrise Athletic Conference/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced by this article to be honest. In its current format, I'd suggest that it is probably more of a list than an article, and should probably be considered at featured list rather than here. If we are addressing it as an article, I would suggest that it needs significantly more information on the actual championships, rather than just a list of winners.


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * 1) Although what is present is reasonably well-written, the lead does not adequately summarise the article, in fact it doesn't even tell us that the conference doesn't exist any more. The membership timeline section has a lot of whitespace on my monitor as the two graphics can't display side-by-side.
 * 2) The references that are provided all appear to be to reliable sources. However, the first reference is bare URL, and only the History section has any references, none at all are offered for the information in Former members, Membership timeline, Conference sports or Conference championships.
 * 3) As I stated above, the article seems too vague, and unless there are other articles which this one can link to, it should provide more information on the actual championships that took place.
 * 4) No concerns regarding neutrality.
 * 5) No concerns regarding stability.
 * 6) The images are appropriately licensed, and captioned, but I can't help feeling that the map should show the location of all the universities, not just those from 2011.
 * 7) Overall, I think this article is a fair way from meeting the GA criteria, and so I am going to quick-fail it. In it's current format (with improvement to the referencing and lead) it might be considered at FL, but I do not feel that it adequately deals with the topic for a GA. Harrias talk 10:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)