This article is extensively under-referenced. This is especially pertinent in sections like History, where "legends" are told without references, and Demographics, where statistics are given without references.
Many references are missing vital information, such as titles, publishers and access dates. Because of the lack of references, it is difficult to tell if there is original research present.
External links should be changed into references or moved to an external link section. They shouldn't be in the body of the article.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
While it seems that most of the pertinent information is included in the article, it is poorly organized, through the excessive use of lists, short sections and short paragraphs.
Galleries are generally discouraged, except when they add value to the article. I don't see how any of the images included in this article's gallery add significant value to the reader's experience.
Because of all of the other issues with the article, I have not reviewed image licensing.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Because of the number of issues with this article, especially those related to references, I am failing this article. There is, I believe, too much work that needs to be done for it to happen in a reasonable time frame. Once the above issues have been addressed, the article may be brought back to GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]