Talk:Hammock camping/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 02:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The lead fails to summarise the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   There are two references, one with an apparently invalid ISBN, the other apparently published by a hammock manufacturer.

   Only two paragraphs are referenced. The majority of statements are completely uncited

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:

   Appears to be a POV article.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a quick-fail due primarily to lack of referencing, non-neutral point of view. Please read and comprehend the good article criteria before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.