Talk:Galeon/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This article has some considerable shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are errors in English grammar (especially in the lede) and some otherwise odd usage throughout.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There appear to be a few cited sources which are independent and reliable third party sources but sites like this and this appear to be just forums. See WP:Reliable Sources in general, and WP:USERG specifically.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The whole article seems to be heavy on praise for the subject, the only criticism mentioned is a six word sentence at the end of the article. I'm sure there were critics and/or negative reviews by at least some.

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):

   I wouldn't fail an GA nom solely for lack of images, but a web browser does have a visual component that could be represented by more that just a screenshot in the infobox

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is still quite a bit of work that needs to be done in the areas of copyediting and referencing to reliable, independent, third party sources. Good luck improving the article.