Talk:Defense Acquisition University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 04:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.

• First comment - the primary source tag is appropriate, it's got very few secondary/tertiary sources that it really needs, there is only one right now and it's for one incident. So I will go through and provide a review but this is critical for GA status, cannot pass without more independent sources.  MPJ-US  04:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool

• WP:LEAD indicates that an article this size should have 1-2 paragraphs, I would like GAs to strive for two.

Copyright violations Tool

• TBD

Disambiguation links

• No issues Y

External links

• Two dead links - the DAU Annual Report and the DAU website come back as dead since 2015-10-19

Well Written

• TBD

Sources/verifiable

• This is where it fails, there is no significant, independent coverage shown here. There is ONE non-primary source and that's more about the hacking incident than the school.
• This needs to be improved if there is any hope of becoming a GA N

Broad in coverage

• TBD

Neutral

• A large degree of promotional material was trimmed after this was nominated for GA - it's almost a totally different article that's there now than when it was nominated. I am a bit concerned about this,

Stable

• TBD

Illustrated / Images

• Yes, no issues Y

• @Huskers110110: - I am going to put this review on hold right now, the sources need to be addressed and fairly quickly too or it'll be failed within a couple of days. If you show you are serious about making this a Good Article by providing sources I will resume the review then.  MPJ-US  21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Huskers110110: - Five days, no activities. This article has fundamental problems, not just GA problems but wikipedia fundamental problems. So I am going to go ahead and fail it now. MPJ-US  14:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)