Talk:Technicolor (physics)/GA1

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

Sorry, but I have to speedy-fail this GA nomination. The article has serious issues that cannot be addressed easily. They are as follows: For the reasons above, I am speedy-failing this article, because I do not believe these issues can be addressed in the span of a normal GA review, and in fact the article may need to be completely rewritten. Once the article is rewritten to address the issues raised above, you are free to re-nominate it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) First of all, it lacks an introduction; there is a section labeled "Introduction" but it does not clearly identify what the article is even about. You can see the guidelines at WP:LEDE for more information about how an introduction should be structured to meet Wikipedia's style guidelines.
 * 2) Large portions of text (particularly in the first half of the article) are unreferenced. There are full paragraphs with no inline citations.
 * 3) Two sections are much too long to read comfortably; in all, the article structure is awkward and needs to be divided into heirarchical sections. The inclusion of a "summary" section is not standard for Wikipedia, and seems more like a journal article; Wikipedia does not generally use conclusions or summaries.
 * 4) Citation style is awkward and confusing; more importantly, it uses things such as ibid. Wikipedia does not use ibid (see WP:IBID) because things get changed and moved around when articles are edited, and "ibid" entries can become confusing.
 * 5) The article is confusing, if not incomprehensible, to lay readers.
 * 6) Formatting errors, such as "Whether walking can occur and lead to agreement with precision [[electroweak interaction|electroweak measurements|undefined"...I'm not sure what that is supposed to look like.
 * 7) Finally, judging by the wording of the summary at the end of the article, this article appears to be trying to present an argument about technicolor and propose future directions in research. That is appropriate in journal articles, but not in a Wikipedia article; Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source.