Talk:Answers Research Journal/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can review this. Initial indications are that it meets GA, but I will do more analysis this week. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, thank you very much for taking up this review. If you have feedback for me, I most likely won’t be able to respond until July 8th. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A basic point: I think the article is too aggressive in places and includes not-neutral words which are not needed, and might be considered as OR. A couple of examples with words that could be removed are:

A 2009 article ~~spuriously~~ proposes
His thesis, ~~incorrectly~~

In both cases it could be argued that a source is needed for the word I have stricken out. Those were the most obvious, please go through and check, letting the sourced material tell the story -- which is clearly very strong. Please let me know when you are done Ldm1954 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I’m not the one who added “spuriously” and I agree it should be removed. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe “incorrectly” is not OR. We always describe climate change denialism in such terms. The cited source verifies it as well: ” For example, in its “research journal” is this flat statement: [climate thesis].Simple, eh? Completely wrong, but simple. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: So besides those two examples, do you have any other concerns? I’m not seeing much instances of non-neutral language. Certainly, the reception is pretty negative but all those statements are attributed, so it complies with NPOV. Do you have objections to “not scientifically sound”; “unscientific”; “journal's objective is not scientific inquiry”? We have to remember that WP:FRINGE comes into play here. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go over it carefully tomorrow (or Monday). Ldm1954 (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ldm1954. Have you had a chance to review it? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up the review as a Pass. The only slightly questionable point is 6a, images. The journal has graphic pages at the top of each article, many of which are from Wikimedia Commons so might be useable. Something to think about for later. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.