Talk:War in Darfur/GA1

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

   The prose could do with a thorough copy-edit, for grammar, clarity and readability.

   a number of stray sentences which should be consolidated into paragraphs.

   the lead does not fully summarise the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

   five dead links

   inconsistently formatted in-line citations

   Those sources which are accessible appear to be reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A better explanation of the causes of the conflict is needed, also a more thorough analysis of Sudan's politics and the deacdes long cicil ear in the South which has some connection to this.

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This is an emotive topic and I believe that many additions to this article have introduced a non-neutral point of view.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appear to have been a large number of fairly recent POV additions.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

'::I am going to delist this as the article does not currently meet the

Fair enough. The article may also contain copyvios added by De Administrando Imperio (talk · contribs) - please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio#Articles 81 through 100 Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]