Talk:Sex workers' rights/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Yipes! You've waited quite a while for this one to be reviewed Lgriffin92. I'll give it a go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose isn't bad, but it needs to be neatened and clarified to meet Wikipedia standards.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede section does not sufficiently summarise the rest of the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some of these references are not appropriate, such as those in the "Discrimination and stigmatization" section. In many other cases books or articles are used as references without page numbers. Other sentences and sections simply aren't referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article fails to provide a global perspective.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article carries a strong U.S.-centric bias throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid that while there's some good stuff here, a lot more work is needed before this can achieve GA status. Don't be discouraged however, and keep on contributing! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)