Talk:Bangkok/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

Article is not particularly well written. A lot of scruffy paragraphs which are not concise. History is not adequate.

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Considering it is a capital city sourcing in parts is poor. Its uses many poor quality sources and entire paragraph unreferenced.

1. C. No original research:

There are entire paragraphs which are unsourced and look as if somebody living in the city wrote them.

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

The article is very long as expected but it needs a major injection of quality and to be better written more/concise in parts.

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

No problems I can see with neutrality

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

3. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm failing this as I feel the problems with it are too numerous to make it worth putting it on hold. The prose is not the quality of a GA. Many paragraphs are unsourced and contain badly written text. Better quality sources could be used to write this article. At present I feel it has quite a long way to go before reaching GA. Start focusing on comprehension/concision. History section is not adequate for such a major city. Look in google books and try to replace a lot of the sources and source/improve the quality of text for the unsourced parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)