Talk:Democratic Action Party/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):

I will review this article. Lampman (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a typical early-day drive-by GA; the article is nowhere near GA status.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It fails to follow WP:LAYOUT and the guidelines for list incorporation. There are far too many short paragraphs, and the lower half consists almost entirely of lists. If this information is important it should be moved to a stand-alone list article, with a link and a prose section in its place. The "2008 elections" part should not be written in the present tense.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are five dead references that I've marked of. Also, major parts are unreferenced, such as the entire "Pakatan Rakyat" and "Party symbol and its meaning" sections. "Pakatan Rakyat" also needs more context to be fully comprehensible to the uninitiated reader.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While the history of the party is covered to a certain extent, there is nothing on ideology, party program etc.

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):

   It's hard to believe there are no images to illustrate the article, such as pictures of central members etc.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)