Talk:Polish–Czech Friendship Trail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work to be brought up to Good Article standards. I do see that it is a relatively new article, having just been created on December 29, 2009, so it's at an early stage in the article's development. See below for an itemized review of how this article stacks up against the six GA criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article prose needs a major cleanup and copyedit -- lots of issues with punctuation, choppy/short/incomplete sentences, missing spaces between words, etc. The lead section is also too short and could use a rewrite (see WP:LEAD). I don't see any major WP:MOS violations, although there's some little things. For example, try to use shorter and more succinct section headers (instead of 'Maintenance and rescue service' just shorten to 'Maintenance'). Also, citations in sentences should be placed immediately AFTER punctuation marks, with no space between -- NOT BEFORE the punctuation mark. When putting dashes in sentences, try to use an endash (–) instead of a regular dash character.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   None of the information or citations can be verified by readers of the English Wikipedia, since all citations go to websites in Polish. It would also help if citations included author, publisher, and date of publication information, instead of just a link and a date the URL was retrieved. This would help to establish the reliability of the source cited (is the source an established newspaper or book, or is it somebody's blog?).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Difficult to properly assess the completeness of the article, but it does appear to have most of the major sections that one would expect -- history, route description, climate, nature/wildlife. It might help to combine 'access' with 'route description', and move the route description information to just after 'history', since that would probably be sought after by readers first. Combine 'places on the trail' with 'route description' as well. The last two sections could be 'climate' and 'nature'. The article really should have an Infobox in the top corner as well. The Appalachian Trail article can help with the overall organization of this article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Difficult to properly verify neutrality since the sources and citations are all in polish and I can't verify their reliability. I don't see any major or glaring WP:NPOV issues, however, so I wouldn't anticipate any issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very few edits since article creation in December, but no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.

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):

   All images have appropriate copyright tags and captions, so they pass the criteria fairly easily. There are, however, at least three maps of the trail, in different forms and formats and locations throughout the article. While these localized trail maps are helpful, what would really help would be to include a large map of eastern Europe with a red dot or line indicating the position of the trail in relation to other countries, to help someone that's unfamiliar with the local area to figure out where the trail is. This could be added to an infobox at the top of the article? See Appalachian Trail.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I wouldn't pass this article in its current state, as there are too many issues with it. I will leave it on hold for two weeks (until 2/26/2010), to give editors a chance to address the issues. However, if the article is ultimately failed, please don't take that as an ultimate decision -- the article can be renominated once the issues are finally addressed (GA "on hold" status isn't intended as a "long term" solution). Cheers! WTF? (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No new edits in the article's history since 2/12/2010. Failing the article at WP:GAN for now. Once these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated at relisted. WTF? (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)