Talk:Warwickshire/GA1

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

Hello. I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. This is mainly due to referencing issues, but there are also other concerns that need to be addressed before this article can become a GA. Here is a list of the basic issues:


 * Referencing is the biggest concern with this article. There is only one in-line reference for the entire article! All but one of the sections is completely unreferenced.
 * In the Education section there is a cleanup banner dating from September 2008 and a citation needed tag dating from January 2008.
 * External links should not be present in the text, as they are in the Economy, Education and Canals and Waterways sections. These links should either be turned into in-line references or moved to the External links section.
 * There are a lot of bullet-pointed lists in this article, which MOS discourages. These should be turned into prose wherever possible.
 * There should not be sections that consist of nothing but a list of bullet-pointed names, such as the Places of interest section. This should be turned into prose as much as possible, or prose should be added to give some context of these places.
 * The Economy section needs to be expanded. Just giving a table of how the regional gross value added has increased over the past decade does little for the reader. Instead, give information on what products are made or grown there, how the economy has developed or changed, and other prose information that gives the reader more context about the area.
 * There are a lot of really short paragraphs. These should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs to make the article flow better.

These are the issues that jumped out to me on a quick run through the article. It is not a comprehensive list, as I have not checked image licensing or done a full check of prose, NPOV and completeness. I notice that the nominator has not made any edits to the article, at least in the past 7 months of the article history. I would suggest that some serious work be put into this article, and after that has been done, I would love to see the article back at GAN! Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I think the review is fair. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)