Talk:Anna Gaskell/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing. But it will take some strong arguments to persuade me that this should not be a quick fail. It currently consists of a paragraph of actual biography, a long section about her work written entirely in obfuscatory and largely content-free jargon (international art English, to be specific), and a long and indiscriminate bulleted list of exhibitions and awards. I think this is very far from meeting Good Article criteria 1a ("the prose is clear and concise"), 1b (particularly WP:USEPROSE and "words to watch"), 2b (I removed a cleanup tag, but many sources are primary sales sites for art galleries), 3b (unnecessary detail of non-notable exhibits), and 4 (the assertion of editorial claims about her artworks as if they were facts rather than attributing these claims to the sources that made them strikes me as non-neutral). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem is the lack of reviews - I'm happy to add some, but the vacuous IAE (also POV, it appears) does need, er, quite a bit (as we Brits say) of copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, I see that the nominator has only ever worked on this one article, and hasn't contributed for over a month. Rather than continuing to drag it out, I'm just going to go ahead and fail this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very wise, yes, it looks unlikely they'll be back in time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, I see that the nominator has only ever worked on this one article, and hasn't contributed for over a month. Rather than continuing to drag it out, I'm just going to go ahead and fail this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The main problem is the lack of reviews - I'm happy to add some, but the vacuous IAE (also POV, it appears) does need, er, quite a bit (as we Brits say) of copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)