Talk:Lurgan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When reviewing this article against the six good article criteria, I have to say that this falls far short of GA at this time.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article does not follow either Wikipedia's manual of style nor WP:UKCITIES guidelines. The UK cities guideline has a lot of very useful information for what sections an article can contain, and I highly recommend looking at that. As for the prose, there's a lot of very short, choppy sentences and sections. The lead section is also too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the article. WP:LEAD can help with this.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The citations that are included seem to be coming from reliable sources, for the most part. But most of the article is cited somewhat sketchily, at best. Citation information should also follow a consistent formatting, and full citation information should be included (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved for online sources, etc). This is important so that if the link ever disappears, the citation is not rendered useless and information can still be verified through other means.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is neither complete nor focused. Several sections consist solely of bulleted lists, and contain no prose. At present, it seems like a good collection of notes about the city, but is not organized very well into a comprehensive article about it; for example, the "Lurgan spade" section in the middle of the article -- contains three short sentences about a figure of speech, but is inserted somewhat randomly into the middle of it? There's no context for its inclusion, and if it were to be eliminated, at present, I can't see any negative consequences to it (note: I'm not calling for its deletion. Just stating that I can't see the context or importance of it in this article at present). As noted earlier, a review of WP:UKCITIES will help editors of this article tremendously with this aspect.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It's difficult to properly evaluate an article in such early stages of its development, since neutrality issues could develop at a later stage. At present, the presence of a subsection entitled "the troubles", with just a single sentence, is bringing too much weight to the "murder triangle" element of the town's history, while the rest of the history section, being largely incomplete, doesn't talk about much else.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   On the bright side, I can't see any evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations, so at the time of this review, the article is stable. Though due to the large amount of editing that is still very likely required to bring the article up to GA standards, that could call the article's stability into question prior to achieving GA status.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are only two images in the article at present, and both are tagged and captioned. More photos could be included in the article however. The Lurgan Park photo doesn't really have too much context to the section it's in -- the caption states "Lurgan Park, before a charity fun run." But the "charity fun run" isn't really mentioned in the section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, the article does not pass all six good article criteria and cannot be listed at this time. "On hold" status is normally reserved for articles that are very close to meeting the criteria, but need a few minor fixes that should be able to be addressed relatively quickly to bring up to standards. I wouldn't be doing editors any favors with that step at this time, so it is better to fail the article and have editors work on the issues outside of GA, and then renominate it once the issues are resolved. For tips in formatting and building articles on UK cities, again I direct you to WP:UKCITIES. There are also several UK cities that are currently listed on the WP:GA page, and I'd recommend looking at those as well. For additional assistance and guidance, you might try asking for help at Wikiproject Cities, or peer review. Hope this helps! Cheers! WTF? (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. I wasn't sure how far I'd need to go to get it to GA status so I figured I'd nominate it and see if any tips could be forthcoming. This is a good help. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)