Talk:Unicorn/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'm quick failing this review on the basis:

Whole paragraphs of uncited text.
Inconsistent referencing styles.
This article, while not terrible, still requires a lot of cleanup before it can make GA. At first glance, extensive see also section, mentioning unlinked terms in the text.
Nominator is an IP and unlikely to follow-through were I to put a lot of effort into suggesting improvements.

Simon Burchell (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment

By coincidence I was planning to review this article, but I have arrived too late. I leave my notes here in the hope that they may be useful to the nominator in revising and resubmitting:

This article has the potential to be a GA after further work, but it is not nearly ready yet. The Immediate failure criterion 1 applies: there are two "citation needed" templates in place and there are more than a dozen other places where the same template could properly be added. There are entire sections without citations. For this reason the article immediately fails the GAN [as indeed it already has].

Less crucially, but still needing attention, the references section is a mess:

references 2–10 all have an error message, "Check date values in: |date="
"page" is shown as p. or pg. indiscriminately and with or without full stops
some page ranges are given with a hyphen, and some with an en-dash (the latter is required by the Manual of Style)
you give the locations for some publishers but not others
ISBNs are a mixture of 10-digit and 13-digit versions – the MoS prescribes the latter (useful conversion tool here)
you list some authors by Firstname Secondname, and others by Secondname Firstname
retrieval dates (when given) are sometimes in "5 August 2013" form and sometimes "2013-08-10"
there are several sites to which you provide a simple link with no site names, dates or publisher details (e.g. 13, 28, 29 and others)
some of those sites look questionable as to WP:RS, specifically those for refs 13, 24, 28 and 30
ref 29 takes me to Ringling Bros Circus site
There are six books listed under "Sources" that don't appear to be sources at all – they are not mentioned in the text or references

I encourage the nominator to address these points and then resubmit the article for GAN. Tim riley talk 09:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, for the record, I agree with all of your comments. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]