Talk:Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa

Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 27, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Biology

	Biology portal Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Museums

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Natural History Museum of the University of Pisa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 18:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article, unfortunately, currently meets the quick-fail criteria as much of the content is not verifiable to reliable sources. Also, comparing with the Italian version of the article brings doubts as to whether the article really fulfills the broadness criterion as well. I suggest continuing to work on the article and especially making sure that all content is cited to reliable sources before re-nominating. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I will look up the broadness criteria too. Appreciate the quick feedback and understand the lack of reliable sources. Just was happy with my complete rewrite of the old page that was a mess.--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are still many parts of the article without sources, I am going to close the review as unsuccessful. Please continue to work on the article and bring it back to GAN in the future! (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]