Talk:Neutral Socialist Conferences during the First World War/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 20:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination[edit]
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 18, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
The grammar is good. The prose needs some work. For example, the article lists the attending delegation twice in the same section. In each section, I would suggest making a clear separation between those who were invited, but did not attend, and those that did attend. The layout of the article needs a lot of work. The lead is far too short. WP:LEAD It should link to articles about the individual conferences at the beginning of each section. Try using this template. For referencing the same source multiple times with different pages, this template might help out as well. - 2. Factually accurate?: This article needs more sources. The sources so far look good, and the inline citations are good, but five sources are probably not adequate to cover the topic in its entirety.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers the attendees pretty thoroughly, but the background and significance of the events need more coverage. What was the goal of the conferences? What impact did these conferences have? Maybe very little? Why did the conferences stop in 1916? Were there any in 1917 or 1918?
- 4. Neutral point of view?:
looks good. - 5. Article stability?: yes.
- 6. Images?: Could use an image or two, maybe more as this article is filled out.
To be honest, this article is far from a Good Article. Currently, it is about Start-Class. Try to expand the article with more information, sources, and images, and especially try to expand the lead. Good luck!
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Forbes72 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)