Talk:United Kingdom/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I have tried to be as thorough as possible, but I haven't analysed every section closely - for some problems, I've just picked out some examples which may or may not be representative - more detailed analysis of individual sentences etc can be given when the major problems are sorted out

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Generally good

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Biggest problem with the article is the lack of references

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Generally good; see comments

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Mostly good, although "Culture" section in particular a little worrying

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):

   Generally good; possibly too many

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Fail for now - if the references are sorted out then it would be getting there

• More refs definitely needed across the article; particularly in the "Culture" section - This is certainly not the only place that needs improving however
• Seven dead links [1]
• Refs shouldn't be in the lead unless the information is unique

• "Internet" section is pointless as it is; it's basically just a link. Expand it or get rid of it; there is a whole article for inspiration - surely you can do better than that.
• Fair number of 1-2 sentence paragraphs that should be combined
• The "See also" section needs work
• I think there should be some background in the "History" section about before the establishment of the UK - just a basic overview of a paragraph would help give people largely unfamiliar with it some background?

• No information about unrest in Northern Ireland here (IRA etc) - extremely important in the modern history of the UK

• "Government":"no elected Sinn Féin ... oath of allegiance to the Monarch" needs a little background about why

• Possibly too much detail in the local government section?

• A fair amount of the article, such as "Foreign relations and armed forces", seems like a list of information
• Possibly too many images?

"Culture": This section needs a lot of work - on top of a lack of referencing:

• "Literature":"Among the earliest English writers are Geoffrey Chaucer (14th century), Thomas Malory (15th century), Sir Thomas More (16th century), and John Milton (17th century)." Firstly, this is completely arbitrary list - how can "earliest" span 4 centuries, secondly, why does the history section start at the founding of the UK, but this goes back much earlier? This ought to be standardised.
• Possible NPOV violations and unencyclopaedic phrasing here: "prophetic" "celebrated" "A more grim outlook is found" etc are also unsourced and others are present across the "Culture" section - the whole section does not read like an encyclopedia article
• The sentence: "The prominence of the English language gives the UK media a widespread international dimension."; you don't comment on this at all in the section, and I don't like the final 3 words either