Talk:Unicorn/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (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, 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:

I'm quick failing this review on the basis:
 * Whole paragraphs of uncited text.
 * Inconsistent referencing styles.
 * This article, while not terrible, still requires a lot of cleanup before it can make GA. At first glance, extensive see also section, mentioning unlinked terms in the text.
 * Nominator is an IP and unlikely to follow-through were I to put a lot of effort into suggesting improvements.

Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

By coincidence I was planning to review this article, but I have arrived too late. I leave my notes here in the hope that they may be useful to the nominator in revising and resubmitting:
 * Additional comment:


 * This article has the potential to be a GA after further work, but it is not nearly ready yet. The Immediate failure criterion 1 applies: there are two "citation needed" templates in place and there are more than a dozen other places where the same template could properly be added. There are entire sections without citations. For this reason the article immediately fails the GAN [as indeed it already has].


 * Less crucially, but still needing attention, the references section is a mess:
 * references 2–10 all have an error message, "Check date values in: |date="
 * "page" is shown as p. or pg. indiscriminately and with or without full stops
 * some page ranges are given with a hyphen, and some with an en-dash (the latter is required by the Manual of Style)
 * you give the locations for some publishers but not others
 * ISBNs are a mixture of 10-digit and 13-digit versions – the MoS prescribes the latter (useful conversion tool here)
 * you list some authors by Firstname Secondname, and others by Secondname Firstname
 * retrieval dates (when given) are sometimes in "5 August 2013" form and sometimes "2013-08-10"
 * there are several sites to which you provide a simple link with no site names, dates or publisher details (e.g. 13, 28, 29 and others)
 * some of those sites look questionable as to WP:RS, specifically those for refs 13, 24, 28 and 30
 * ref 29 takes me to Ringling Bros Circus site
 * There are six books listed under "Sources" that don't appear to be sources at all – they are not mentioned in the text or references


 * I encourage the nominator to address these points and then resubmit the article for GAN.  Tim riley  talk    09:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim, for the record, I agree with all of your comments. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)