Talk:Bergen County, New Jersey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: King jakob c 2 (talk · contribs) 19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• For criterion 1B: The lead should be about twice as long per WP:LEADLENGTH. Here are some specific problems:
  • "The 1709 borders were described as follows". Described by whom?
  • "George Washington knew that the next morning British forces would seize New Bridge Landing, which is only 2 miles north of his headquarters in Hackensack". Tense shift.
  • "and an architecturally notable Sikh gurudwara resides in Glen Rock". Who is he?
• For criterion 2A: Mostly good, but the sources section seems redundant: the refs there are not used at all, or they are in the references section. Ref 177 should have a better title than "7".
• For criterion 2B: Many paragraphs in "Geography" are unreferenced. The last three paragraphs of "County government" have no sources at all. "Points of interest" is mostly unreferenced. A paragraph in "Transportation" is unreferenced.
• For criterion 3B: I think the "Community diversity" section should be consolidated and/or split into a new article. It is far too long as is.
• For criterion 6B: A few too many images in the "Points of interest" section, maybe. A picture of one of the colleges/universities would be good in the education section.
• This review is on hold for 7 days.
  • The review has now been failed.

Checklist

• Well-written
  • The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
  • It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
• Verifiable with no original research
  • It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
  • It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
  • It contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage
  • It addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images.
  • Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
• Overall.

Thank you for nominating, --Jakob (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@King jakob c 2: I suggest a decline of this GA, as this article is clearly not GA quality. Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've failed it. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything in the review. I might've left it open for another day or two, but the nominator doesn't seem to be active. --Jakob (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I realized even soon after submitting it for GA review that it would likely not qualify - the reason being that these county articles few and far between ever reach GA status. I believe it's an inherent part of their make-up and not a bad reflection on this article per se, which I feel is generally a high-quality article that informs the reader with useful and overall well-cited content. Castncoot (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)