Talk:New Jersey/GA1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:04, 26 January 2022

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is gonna be a quick-fail. There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article; it will essentially all need to be cited for GA. Several sections are also out of date - the education section is mainly material from 5-10 years ago and needs updated, the 21st century history contains too little detail, much of the statistics in the demographics section are now outdated. The points of interest should contain prose as well as just lists. There are major layout and MOS:SANDWICH problems in the demographics section. The article also cites the unreliable rootsweb, and many of the sources are poorly formatted, such as using "Archived Copy" for the title. As this needs a lot of work to get to standard, I am quick-failing it. Hog Farm _Talk 18:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: That is fair, but can you list where you saw these issues so I can fix them?

Generally, everything should have a citation unless it is as obvious as "the sky is blue" or it's self-proving like some math. This is found pretty much throughout the article. For the statistics, you'll want to go through the whole article and check for numbers and see when the source is from. For situations where the source is older than 3 or 4 years, you need to ask yourself "has this number probably changed since" and then try to find a newer figure. Again, this is pretty pervasive, there aren't really specific highlighted points because there's quite a bit of it everywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 14:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Thanks - Jibreel23

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <!-- Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. So that the review can be kept within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==...==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===...===), level 4 and so on.-->
+I'm sorry, but this is gonna be a quick-fail.  There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article; it will essentially all need to be cited for GA.  Several sections are also out of date - the education section is mainly material from 5-10 years ago and needs updated, the 21st century history contains too little detail, much of the statistics in the demographics section are now outdated.  The points of interest should contain prose as well as just lists.  There are major layout and [[MOS:SANDWICH]] problems in the demographics section.  The article also cites the unreliable rootsweb, and many of the sources are poorly formatted, such as using "Archived Copy" for the title.  As this needs a lot of work to get to standard, I am quick-failing it. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 18:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
+{{ping|Hog Farm}} That is fair, but can you list where you saw these issues so I can fix them?
+: Generally, everything should have a citation unless it is as obvious as "the sky is blue" or it's self-proving like some math.  This is found pretty much throughout the article.  For the statistics, you'll want to go through the whole article and check for numbers and see when the source is from.  For situations where the source is older than 3 or 4 years, you need to ask yourself "has this number probably changed since" and then try to find a newer figure.  Again, this is pretty pervasive, there aren't really specific highlighted points because there's quite a bit of it everywhere. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 14:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
+Alright Thanks - Jibreel23