Talk:Section 21 notice/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 19:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Is this article reasonably well written? The prose in this article at times seems to ramble on without a ton of clarity at times. Perhaps that is just the nature of the subject, but it seems as though the writing could be improved. The lead is fine in length and quality (good job there), but the article is too brief and lacks details where they are necessary. Also, the section on Wales is far too short to meet GA criteria. MoS compliance for lead however the rest of the article needs a little work.

2. Is it verifiable? The external links all appear functional, and lead to reliable sources. Also, no evidence of original research appears to be present. Has an appropriate reference section:

3. Is it broad in its coverage? This article could could be more in depth and longer but as far as broadness goes, it is fine.

4. Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias. The article appears to represent all areas it discusses fairly in the length it gives to each section.

5. Is it stable? No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? There are absolutely no images here whatsoever. I am however, not sure if any would apply as this is not an article that you really could find an image for. I will give it a pass now but I am in two minds as to how to do this one. I would like a second opinion on this criterion specifically.

I personally fail this article, but would like another opinion.

Pass or Fail: Good job! KTC Congratulations!!

• @Mgasparin: The prose could be improved, but it's far from quick fail. If you prefer not to do an in-depth copyedit yourself, consider putting in a request at WP:GOCE/REQ. Some of your comments are contradictory, such as stating that the Wales section needs expansion but also passing it on the "broadness" criterion. I have no opinion on whether it meets the coverage standard, but if there are significant details missing, state what they are more specifically so that the nominator can address them. buidhe 00:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• @Buidhe: Thanks for the opinion. Having reread my comments I see what you meant by contradictory. Mgasparin (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)