| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to know the quality of the article. Is this ready for a GA nomination?
Thanks, Salgado96 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Ruby2010 I do not feel the article is yet ready for GA status. The references are almost entirely bare URLs, and some of the websites may not be reliable sources. Also, there are a number of paragraphs/sentences that lack references. Hope this helps and good luck. Ruby2010 comment! 19:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank You :) well, I would like to someone with more experience to do that please, if it's possible... I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Thank You Salgado96 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from Seegoon
I've just placed a couple of cleanup templates on the article: {{link rot}} and {{refimprove}}. Those are the two most glaring issues with it at the moment; it uses bare URLs, whereas citation templates should be being used. Secondly, many sections are entirely unreferenced while others are seriously underreferenced. I could go through placing {{fact}} tags everywhere, but it'd be demotivating to see your article butchered so. Suffice to say, it needs more referencing, and it needs cleaner referencing. You say you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia practices; as such, I'd be more than happy to help out. Just post any queries you might have on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to edify. Oh, and unfortunately – to answer your question – this isn't ready for GA status. Not just yet. Seegoon (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)