Talk:Zen/GA1

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

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm busy with real life, I've been doing reviews which can only be completed at a glance. I'm sorry to say but this article is far away from GA standards. Here are the 3 basic reasons behind it:


 * Many paragraphs are of one-two lines and few sections need expansion.
 * Anything in the lead should be covered later in the article with more details and lead should be summary of the article per WP:LEAD. The article is not at all summarized by the lead.
 * Grammar and similar issues seems to be existing and the article is in need of copyediting throughout.
 * MoS fixes are needed. Bulleting should be minimized and paragraphs should be larger and not just of 2-3 lines. Too many quotes are used in the article where the text is relatively in less amount
 * There is lack of refs. This is the main reason for the failure. The article has so many facts unsourced and thus it is extremely tough to verify the content or to track down any vandalism. We need references to WP:RS in order to verify the content and this article has many of its content as unsourced. To get this up to GA level, each and every fact in the article should have at least one reliable source using well formatted citation.

Despite of all the hard work, lack of refs will be the main reason for failing this. I believe that work on the article for 1 more month would be fine and this was just a touch too rushed nomination. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed easily. Sorry to say but I've to quickly fail it. Once addressed the issues raised above, anyone can go for another nom. Thanks!  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)