Talk:Uluru/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nkon21 (talk · contribs) 09:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing another one of your articles. Stay tuned. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  09:11, 9 January 2021 (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, 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:

Quick fail
Similar to the last GAN I reviewed for you, I'm going have to quick fail this because: 1) Multiple sourcing banners on the page; there are some entire sub-sections that are unsourced, 2) Again, you have not contributed enough to the article–only 2 edits logged to the page (although you added several new references but not enough content work), and 3) Not very broad in coverage, especially when the subject is one of the most iconic symbols of Australia.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you.— ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  15:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)