Talk:Texting while driving/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

First of all, I am concerned that the nominator, Trovb5, is not a major contributor to the article. (I only saw three edits to the article in the user's contributions page.) As a courtesy to your fellow editors, future nominations should be made only after consulting with the primary contributors to a given article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References are not formatted properly, especially in paragraph two of the lead and the first "Laws by location" subsection, where bracketed numbers supposedly refer to the citations without the standard wiki-code. "Citation needed" tags remain, and large portions of text remain unsourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Reviewing laws of Canada, UK, and US alone does not provide for a broader perspective.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm going to fail this GAN at this time. I suggest reviewing the GAN guidelines before submitting subsequent nominations.