Talk:2011 New Patriotic Party Primaries/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: User:Crosstemplejay
Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 15:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is fine, but there are too many lists, as discussed below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are significant problems here. The items linked are not what is most useful. For context, it would be useful to mention and link Politics of Ghana, Elections in Ghana, etc. The article links nationwide, which makes little sense, and parliament without specifying which parliament. It should link to the Ghanaian presidential election, 2012 article, etc. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) The categories are all inaccurate. The primary is not a party. See Wikipedia:Categorization There are lists which should be rewritten as text, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) The lede section should be a summary of each section in the article, and should not introduce new information, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). There is currently an orphan banner, which needs to be fixed.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Much of the article seems plagiarized from http://news.myjoyonline.com/politics/201104/65056.asp and other articles. These should be used as sources, but not quoted verbatim.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sourcing is okay, but not all contestable statements are sourced, and there are a few dead links.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	For an outsider unfamiliar with Ghana politics, little context is given with which to make sense of the article. Also, the aftermath is given only 3 sentences.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This is fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not enough context to determine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This is fine.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm afraid this does not pass our GA standards at this time. I would advice working on the items listed, and then nominating the article for peer review.