Talk:Southtowns/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Not performed a full check. Remember to state which country the place is.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Not fully chekced, but looks okay.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am very concerned with the scope of the article. It presents a single section, with the encyclopedic header "details". That place is used to discuss several possible definitions of Southtowns is good, since there is no agreement as to the definition. But from then, the article becomes very lacking. The "attractions" section reads more like an entry at Wikitravel than Wikipedia. I would like to see more on the the demographics and geography of the region (to sovlve the variation in size, several values can be given). Also, what are defining aspects of this region? Since the area is group together, they must have a historic or other common deminion. I would like to see sections or subsection discussing aspects such as history, culture, economy, demographics, geography, transport and nature.

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):

   Not chekced.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am failing the article. It fails to address most of what I expect to find in an article on a region, failing 3a. Make the article considerably longer and with a much broader scope, and then consider re-nominating. If you feel there has been an error, you can remoniate at WP:GAN, or ask for a reassessment. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)