Talk:Geocaching/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Geocaching, although an informative and in-depth article that I enjoyed reading, lacks good and consistent referencing. The grammar and spelling also may need attention. I attempted to fix minor problems in this article itself as I thought I might be able to put it on hold, but a lot of work needs to be done by more than one person. Much of these mistakes were mentioned in the peer review (located here), over 18 months ago and I don't think the issues mentioned in the peer review were addressed before GA nomination. Please put up for a second peer review or take considerable time and edits before putting this back up for nomination. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 06:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   needs tidying up around the edges, but mostly minor stuff

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

   captions need to include further context rather than just the stating what's in the image. See WP:CAP.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Article problems

• Captions - See WP:CAP to improve these.
• Spelling - I've fixed what I could see, but there could be many more. I fixed stenciled > stencilled, pickup > pick-up, Letterboxers > Letterboxes, superacronym > superacronym, Traveling > Travelling, trackable > traceable, personel > personnel
• Grammar and MoS - Fixed double spacing. The article has an overuse of quotation marks, these should be removed when not be used for direct quotes or unique words more than once. For example, the fourth line in the lead paragraph should only be quoted if it has been said by someone, which it implies it has, therefore it should be cited. Italics should be used to distinguish two words. An example in the article would be -

If a cacher discovers that a cache has been muggled, it can be logged as needing maintenance, which sends an e-mail to the cache owner so it can be repaired, replaced, or archived (deactivated).

Deactivated would be italiced because it means the same thing as archived.

• Citations - Needs a lot of facts cited. Will highlight these on the article page.
• Referencing style - Very little of it meets WP:HARV.
• Wikify - Key terms need to be wikified (i.e skulking near schools and ..encourages finders to trespass, ...Sometimes these can be metal disks, radio towers, or a bolt in central locations or on a highway.)

Summary

Lead

• Needs fixes in grammar and possible inline citations.

History

• Unnecessary quotation marks and italics.

Geocaches

• Much of this section is unreferenced and has no inline citations. I will put what needs to be cited on the article page as there is more than one occurrence.

Variations

• The entire list of this section needs to be referenced and cited. Plus other sections that I will edit onto page.

Terminology

• Bold headings much like the list in variations.

Controversy and issues

• Section heading was uncapitalised as per WP:MoS. Needs referencing and citations as well as maybe wikifying the section a bit more.

Websites

• Lead sentence needs most attention with wikifying and referencing. Rest of the section is poorly cited and referenced.

References

• Not in correct format. Needs a lot of attention. Please read WP:HARV on how to reference correctly on Wikipedia.

I don't think this article will be up to GA standard without a substantial amount of research and edits. Therefore I'm going to fail its nomination. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 06:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)