Talk:Swastika/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• General

10 dead links

5 dablinks

Like users said at FAC and the talkpage, it have too many images, you should create a gallery in the aricle or maybe with commons:Swastika is enough.

A lot of tags, if you cannot provide the fact, remove it.

• Lead

Per WP:Lead this section should have at least 3 paragraphs, also, remeber that it summarize the entire article.

Hakenkreuz shouldn't be in bold.

The hatnote about merging Manji (Kanji) must dissapear.

• Etymology and alternative names

meaning any lucky or auspicious object, -> meaning "any lucky or auspicious object",

the list in the section has to dissapear.

• Geometry

Nazi ensigns had a through and through image, so both versions were present, one on each side, but the Nazi flag on land was right-facing on both sides and at a 45° rotation.[7]

The name "sauwastika" is sometimes given to the left-facing form of the swastika ().[8] -> Both para should be merged in one oly paragraph.

File:Selection of Vinča symbols in Gimbutas font.png missing permission.

I would continue reviewing the article, but the nominator is blocked, so this is for other users, I recommend first resolve those comments (in special the "General section"). Take this to per review before WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Article quick failed. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel this is in error, you may request a Good article reassessment. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)