Talk:Oaxaca/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and will have some initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I usually use a template to do a full review, but there are several things that jump out at me as needing to be addressed before a full review can commence. Due to this, I am going to post some initial comments here, and once they have been addressed, I will review the article in full. Initial thoughts:

• Work on referencing is needed. For example:
  • Fact tag in the The arts section, one in Landmarks and tourist attractions, two in Higher education, one in Sport.
  • Seven dead links that should be fixed or replaced, see here
  • Ref #8 (www.pesomexicano.com.mx.) is also not working, although it's not listed on the list of dead links.
  • Ref #97 (Surfer.com) is also not working, although it's not listed on the list of dead links.
• I am very unimpressed with the quality of references used:
  • What makes ref #10 (Explorando Mexico) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #12, 69 (MexConnect) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #39 (Oaxaca Tarvel site.) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #47 (Lagunas de Chacahua) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #49 (PLANETA.COM.) a reliable reference?
  • What makes refs #50, 98 (Oaxaca's Tourist Guide) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #52 (Huatulco Tour Guide) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #74 (Mexonline.com) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #75 (George & Audrey DeLange) a reliable reference?
  • What makes ref #99 (River Rafting in Huatulco) a reliable reference?
• Disambiguation needed tag in Nature and conservation
• What is the criteria for the Famous people section? If kept, it seems a bit biased towards politicians and painters, at the moment! Also, needs references.
• This article is currently at over 11,800 words, which is well beyond the 6,000-10,000 word maximum recommended by WP:SIZE. I would suggest considering whether there is information which could be cut or moved to daughter articles.

Due to the referencing problems alone, I am strongly tempted to simply fail the GA nomination for this article. However, it is possible that this work could be done within the normal time frame of GAN, and so I am willing the give the nominator (and others) a shot at it. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Due to the complete lack of response to this review, I am failing this article's nomination for GA status. I would suggest that future nominators address the above concerns before renominating the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)