Talk:Impalement/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) 10:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I will need to quick-fail this: the main issue is that there are large portions of the article that are not cited. --Rs chen 7754 10:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that this article is well on the way to getting to GA, it's just still got quite a bit of referencing related work needed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is NOT cited/supported by material provided in the text? Be specific!Arildnordby (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V - every assertion needs to be cited. There are entire paragraphs that are not cited. --Rs chen 7754 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead text and Methods section summarize, and do not assert anything beyond what is provided by and based upon numerous citations below. This goes on elements like a)Usage of stake/pole, b) Usage of hooks, c) Longitudinal impalement, d) frontal-dorsal impalement, e) Rectal insertion, f) Vaginal insertion, g) Exit wound in neck/shoulder area etc. All of these have cited, backed-up examples in the text. So I can agree to needed citation clarification for those sections, but certainly not that any of the assertions within those sections are unsupported. They are not.Arildnordby (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified citations as requested, and have therefore chosen to renominate the article for GA status.Arildnordby (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]