Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Google/2
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result:
Delisted per subpar layout and referencing Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC) There are too many maintenance tags (such as {{fact}}) for this to be a good article. It meets one of the Immediate failures criteria.--Proud User (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delist You're right, I also have a few other issues.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Please don't have citations in the lead
- Some points have too many cites.
- Some refs can be expanded
- To many dls.
- Too many one sentence paragraphs
- Inconsistence: "NY Times" and "New York Times"
- A few fair use rationales could be expanded.
- "no evil philosophy", "anticorporate", this is un-neutral
- "no evil" – "no-evil"
- Put citations after punctuation.
- You get the idea, this needs lots of work to keep it's status. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)