GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ritchie333 ( talk · contribs) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have to quickfail this review on the grounds of stability. I see an immediate problem with edit warring / reverts (eg:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8].) The related discussion at
Talk:A Christmas Carol#Scrooge McDuck? doesn't give me confidence that the major players on the article have agreed which direction to go in. I appreciate you've done quite a bit of copyediting, but that's only one of the areas that a GA requires. Ideally you should have all the book sources already used, and more, and use them extensively to rewrite as much of the article as necessary. In addition, the lead is too long (an article for about 25K of prose should have about three paragraphs) and the "Background" section is quite fallow, giving us little information about why the novel was written.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)