Talk:Weela Weela Walya/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 lead does not summarize the article, it contains material not found in the artcile, and omits material that is in the article. Please read WP:LEAD.

   The ballad has been referenced in various books such "various" here is a weasel word.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What makes the barely literate website http://www.zeban.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:weile-weile-waile&catid=35:song&Itemid=63&lang=en a reliable source?

   The refernce to Sebastian Barry. Annie Dunne Penguin. May 2003 needs a page number.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is wehre the artcile falls down. Four sentences, less than a hundred words acbnnot by any means be thought of as broad coverage of the subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   None used.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article needs considerable expansion to meet the GA criterion of broad coverage, so I will nto be listing it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]