Talk:Russia/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following this GAR request

Disambiguations: 1 found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: 2 found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose doesn't fully meet the "reasonably well written criteria:

   Phrases such as One of the first modern human bones of 35,000 years old were found in Russia, are ungrammatical.

   ... the population loss caused by plagues wasn't so severe as in the Western Europe... Wasn't?

   Assisted by the Russian Orthodox Church and Saint Sergius of Radonezh's spiritual revival, under the leadership of Prince Dmitri Donskoy of Moscow, the united army of Russian principalities inflicted a milestone defeat on the Mongol-Tatars in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380. Clumsy and over-long.

   I would suggest a thorough copy-edit aiming for good plain English.

   The size is an obvious issue, please consider splitting off material into sub articles. I note that some attempts are still ongoing to address this.

   Suggest dramatically reducing the Culture section, as this should be well covered in the sub article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are still many un-cited statements, statistics, etc. which have been tagged. Although specifically noted on the talk page these have not been fully addressed. This alone is cause for immediate de-listing.

   Sources appear to be reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted above too much detail in the culture section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No immediately obvious bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No evidence of edit warring, some dispute about what should and shouldn't be included.

6. 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):

   Rather too may images, in my opinion. Images should be used to illustrate the text rather then as decoration.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is a lot to do here to bring this up to standard so I am going to de-list now. When the problems are fixed, please re-nominate at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)