Talk:Denmark–Eritrea relations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead does not comply with WP:LEAD. The whole article should be summarised here.

Prose is stilted, poorly cast and contains elementary mistakes of grammar and spelling.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Appear to be reliable sources, assume good faith for Danish sources, could do with better consistency in publisher deatils, and langauge details (if not English).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It seems rather thin, fails the broadness of coverage criterion, if there isn't more then it can't really be a good article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Appears one-sided - all about Denmark's position, little from the Eritrean pov.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One licensed and tagged image form commons used
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A fairly clearcut fail. there probably isn't enough matwerial to make this a good article ever. The prose is poor, the lead is inadequate, the article focusses exclusively on Denmark's part in the relationship, there is nothing about Eritrea's part. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]