Talk:T-ara/GA1

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

Reviewer: AdabowtheSecond (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Will review comments to follow AdabowtheSecond (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting article, unfortunately, at first glance, this will require quite a bit of work to reach GA quality. Here are a few of the major issues:
 * 1) Citations: A lot of the article is lacking citations. Every ref should be cited no bare urls.
 * 2) Of the citations that are present, checklinks is showing that about 4 or so are dead. I'm skeptical of the reliability of some of the others, a couple links are to wordpress blogs, which are probably not reliable.
 * 3) Another major issue is the prose quality. It looks like it will need a lot of copyediting to reach GA quality. Also, one, two, three sentence paragraphs really break the flow, these should be organized into larger paragraphs.
 * 4) Fix disambiguation 1
 * 5) Dead refs need replacing 1


 * This doesn't meet the quickfail standards, so I'm willing to leave this open for the customary week, although it will take a lot of work to get it there. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has entire phrases without citations, several prose issues, etc. I would consider a quick fail in order for this article, so you can close it now if you wish. Also, you can point out several issues to provide a guidance to the nominator on how to improve the article. Regards. — Hahc 21  04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Assessing this as an quikfail then. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)