Talk:2019 Military World Games/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
Immediate Failures
[edit]It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
-It contains copyright infringements
-It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).
-It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.
-
Links
[edit]Prose
[edit]Lede
[edit]General
[edit]- I know this has been waiting a long time, but this isn't a suitable GA at the present moment. Here's a series of things that caused me to not want the article to go on hold, and fail right out.
Minor:
- WP:BOLDAVOID in lede
- retail stores were newly opened - opened for the event, newly is present tense.
- What's a "chinese sturgeon"?
- .[31][32][33][34] - WP:CITEKILL.
- Why are quotes in italics?
- It was reported that 109 nations - by whom? There's clearly 110 from the full list below, which was overkill too.
Major:
- Most of the info in the lede should be in the body.
- Random external links (suitable for WP:LINKROT) in the results section
- No commentary on the medals/results
- Very short sections such as bidding, marketing and venues need expansion
- The WP:WEIGHT seems massively off. Why are we drawing attention to one venue over others, or one record being beaten?
- The list of venues seems a bit long, needs signifcant commentary as to what's going on/where it's sourced to.
- Article is need of a copyedit, as some things make zero sense when read.
GA Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Review meta comments
[edit]- I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for failing this one so quickly, but there just isn't enough here (or even close to) for me to believe this will meet the WP:BROAD criteria. I've left some comments above, but this would need a lot more for it to have a successful nomination in the future. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)