Talk:Weela Weela Walya/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The lead does not summarize the article, it contains material not found in the artcile, and omits material that is in the article. Please read WP:LEAD.
    The ballad has been referenced in various books such "various" here is a weasel word.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    What makes the barely literate website http://www.zeban.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:weile-weile-waile&catid=35:song&Itemid=63&lang=en a reliable source?
    The refernce to Sebastian Barry. Annie Dunne Penguin. May 2003 needs a page number.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    This is wehre the artcile falls down. Four sentences, less than a hundred words acbnnot by any means be thought of as broad coverage of the subject
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  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):  
    None used.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    This article needs considerable expansion to meet the GA criterion of broad coverage, so I will nto be listing it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply