Talk:Didgeridoo/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

Checking against the criteria, the article have entire paragraphs without in-line citations or totally unsourced, which is reason enough to a quick-fail. Further reviewing, it also fails the criteria 1(a) and 1(b) since it is not well-written and fails to comply with the guideline for Lead section; 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) since it does not provide references to all sources of information in the sections dedicated to the attirubtion of those sources, does not provide in-line citations from reliable sources where needed and may contain original research; and 3(a) and 3(b) since it may noy cover the topic as broad as possible, and goes into unnecesarry technical details.

As a final note, it is too early to nominate this article for GA status. My recommendations: Fill every statement with its correspondent source, revise it against original research, ask for a copy edit, rework the lead section, and manage the unnecesarry technical details, at first.

The result: Quickfailed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.