Talk:New Zealand Labour Party/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Steve Smith (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled: in June 2008 this article was quick-failed for "a near-total lack of sources", with the reviewer noting that "almost nothing below the intro is sourced". Here we are, seventeen months later, and it's back up for GA status, and I am again failing it for a near-total lack of sources, noting that almost nothing below the intro is sourced. There's a lot to like about this article - the information is engaging and it's generally quite well-organized - but the good article criteria (to say nothing of the verifiability policy) are quite clear on this.

Because I am quick failing the article, I am not going to review this with my usual level of detail, but I noticed a few things besides the references that you'll want to address before blue-linking Talk:New Zealand Labour Party/GA3:

I do not believe that File:NewZealandLabourPartyOldLogo.png and File:Labour logo.png pass our non-free content criteria (specifically, criterion 8 in both cases and criterion 3a in the second).
The article is strong on the party's history, but includes virtually nothing about its present situation and policies. I note that the creation of a "policy" section was suggested on the talk page in September 2008; I would echo that suggestion.
The section headings, and to a lesser extent the sections themselves, are biased towards the party's time in government, when its history also includes large chunks of time spent in opposition. These should be given their due weight.
The lead does not summarize the article as required by WP:LEAD.

Again, this is not a bad article (at a glance, the prose looks far better than for most Good Article nominees), but I really have no choice but to quick fail it. Sorry. Steve Smith (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]