Talk:United Kingdom/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a large, detailed, accurate, and in the main very impressive article which we would all like very much to see at GA level or better. I note that the nominator does not appear either to have contributed to the article, or to have consulted on the article's talk page with its editors about nominating it at GAN. More seriously from the point of view of a GA review, there remain numerous uncited claims in many sections of the article, which I have now tagged; I tidied up a 'not in citation given', only to find a whole lot more problems in other places. This degree of carelessness in submitting a major article for review does not give confidence that the long list of citations was checked before submission; ref 545 invokes a citation called 'Spencer' which does not exist. A quick look indicates that refs 4 and 5 are the same; some such as 196, 217, 218 and 405 have no accessdate; some such as 220 are improperly formatted; 437 is cited to 'Richards (2004)', which does not exist. Given the importance of the article, I think it would be best if nom could fix all the obvious errors and carry out a reasonable due diligence on the article before resubmitting. I'm therefore quick-failing it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)