Wikipedia:Peer review/Chav/archive1

Chav

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the article meets a higher grade that it has currently. Can this article now be graded GA?

Thanks, Pennine rambler (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article, but I'm not sure it meets the GA standards quite yet. The main issues that I see are compliance with 1b and 3. A few broad comments:
The lead is an issue, it doesn't really summarize the whole article. Also, information should be in the lead if it's not in the rest of the article. The bit about copying American Hip Hop is pretty interesting, I wish there were more about that later on.
The main issue that I have here is the depth of coverage. There is very little about the history and development of the Chav phenomenon, but a number of mentions of minor media and pop culture mentions and incidents. The description of the details of the stereotype is also quite lacking.
There are a ton of high quality sources out there about this, for starters: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Also, I suspect you could get more out of the Hayward & Yar article and the Owen book. This makes me question the use of the Daily Mail, Metro, and Sun as sources, you could probably do much better. Unless you're going to featured article candidates, so you don't have to use them all the reliable sources, but I'd suggest digging into a at least a few academic sources if you're going for GA.
Some more images would be nice, not strictly necessary though. You might be able to make a decent case for a Fair Use image of Vicky Pollard here.
Generally, a Further Reading section is for unused sources. If you're going to cite multiple pages of a book or journal article you might want the {{Reflist}} in a References section and the books and journals in a Bibliography section. There are different ways to do it though. Br'er Rabbit is pretty helpful about reference formatting, might want to ping him for advice.
Overall this is definitely moving in the right direction, but I'd advise trying to bulk it up with more sources before going to GA. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]