Talk:Charles III/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RonaldDuncan (talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

First review

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

good clear article with large amount of editors

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Nicely layout
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section):

over 100 refs

b. (citations to reliable sources):

need to review all refs but any dubious refs can be easily replace with reliable sources

c. (OR):

None visible

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

no violations
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects):

good set of coverage

b. (focused):

has multiple summaries of separate articles
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

seems to be well protected
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

It is a high profile subject with a large amount of interest
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):

good media

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

A good article on a subject of interest

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Hi Ronald, anything in particular that needs addressed in regards to the images? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldDuncan - I've done some work in the way of improving the use of images in the article, please check to see if it's now suitable. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tim O'Doherty.....there is still a long way to go before review is over. SEE Talk:Elizabeth II/GA4 for an idea of the process.Moxy-

00:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're telling me this...I'm not the reviewer. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: He's not the reviewer, RonaldDuncan is. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 07:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes understand...review not over Moxy-

12:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty Absolutely do not add the GA icon yourself, especially since this review was not explicitly closed as pass by the reviewer. A bot will take care of it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you're not the first to tell me this. The "Overall" pass/fail marked as a plus seemed explicit enough to me. Maybe I jumped the gun, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't need 5 editors telling me at once. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, forgive me if I'm asking a question already answered elsewhere and I missed it, but, is the above an actual GA review by a reliable reviewer? Or is this a review of the review by the not-so-reliable reviewer? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an actual GA review; there are questions about its legitimacy though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If faced with all this, I think Kafka himself might back away slowly into a hedge. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback. I was hoping to carry out the full review before the Coronation, however that was not possible. My initial analysis was that it is a good article, and clearly it is a very relevant subject at the moment.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I'll provide the second opinion. Because of the obvious stability issues that will arise over the next couple of days however, I'll pick this up again a week after the coronation on 13th May; I do not believe that carrying out a review during the next few days would prove productive. The review will include source spotchecks for plagiarism and close paraphrasing, so I would take care that any information added over the next week meets those guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note before the second review's carried out: Earwig says ~98.7% similarity. The site that has that level of similarity is a copy-paste of Charles's article, right down to the references. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate consequence of this article's visibility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your 2nd Opinion, when things calm down.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty and RonaldDuncan:, well, with this article now the subject of a WP:ANI discussion, along with the simultaneous RfC and lengthy talk page disputes, I'm afraid that I have to recommend not promoting the article to GA, on the grounds of stability alone. I see no chance of this vociferousness dying down in the next month, let alone the next week. Tim, I realise that this is a dispiriting opinion, but I do think that the initial goal was too ambitious, giving little heed to the possible issues that lay ahead. Remember Wikipedia has no deadline either in terms of time or nominations, but that this will be a demanding task and not one which can be rushed—Elizabeth II took five years and six attempts to become a GA, in a time when the GA criteria were more lax than they are now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, if there were no dispute and no RfCs, would the fact the article body says less than the lede does about where Charles is king of (the complete opposite of what WP:LEDE and WP:LEDEFOLLOWSBODY say to do) be a point against the article when assessing it for GA status? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 - Sorry for the late response, I've been thinking about the best way to approach this. I said to Mies that if he could get the AN/I report finished by 13 May (when you said that you would begin the second review), then he should go ahead with it if he wanted to. The intention was to get it done by then, so it wouldn't be immediately failed due to the (in)stability of the article. 109 said "[i]f that reviewer withdraws their offer, it'll be closely as a "quickfail", especially with an ongoing AN/I. Which it likely deserves, except that I'd personally really like to get the review, to have a fresh pair of eyes put their verdict in black and white, so that at least we have a possible roadroad to finish the job on a second go. So I'd recommend waiting on then". Slightly more of a "go to AN/I after the review", which, looking back, would have been the better course of action, although it is partially my fault; I gave my "alright, go on then". I thought that you wouldn't begin the review until the 13th, so I thought that if the AN/I was settled by then, then the article would be stable.

I don't believe that the article is all that unstable anymore: it's certainly more stable than it was seven days ago. The AN/I report has little to do with the meat and potatoes of the article, and more with the editors' conduct at the article's talk. The content disputes, which are to do with minor wording changes around the first paragraph and the "Accession and coronation (plans)" section wouldn't change the article much if it were to be a GA, whichever way the content dispute went.

I was hoping that you would conduct a "fuller" review, looking at the actual article itself, i.e. making sure the writing, verifiability, broadness, neutrality and illustrations were at GA-level, and suggesting improvements to the article, rather than a quickfail. If there really, truly is a serious problem with stability, then the review can go on hold; this is what happens to other GARs when something doesn't meet the criteria, e.g. the writing needs some copyediting or the images need better captions; likewise, we can wait until the "problem" (if there is one) with stability is fixed, and the article can pass.

So, AJ29, it's up to you if you want to look at the article more in-depth, or if you want to leave it at that. If you do want to leave it there, we'll have to wait for Ronald to either look at the meat of the article himself, or for him to pass it regardless. If either of those options fail, I'll wait until the article is stable in June-July-ish and then renominate, because it seems to me that whilst there is nothing wrong with the article itself (spelling, prose, SS etc.), there are concerns over behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"More stable than seven days ago" is not really that high a bar, so I think I'll leave it there, and leave it up to you and RonaldDuncan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, AirshipJungleman29, that the increasing stability in the BLP-in-question, as well as the 'Accession and coronation' RFC's results, will seal the GA deal :) GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as my second opinion has immediately been hijacked by two disputing sides, I really don't think "increasing stability" is the phrase I would've gone for. Miesianiacal, to put it bluntly, 1) not really and 2) how about you put down the hypotheticals and start dealing in facts? The talk page is a good place for that.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news! GAC 1b now entirely redundant, much work saved thereby. Now all we need to do is to quantify the degree of doldrums required to satisfy #5, and we'll know exactly when to come back! I imagine that if the "status quo" editors doggedly stonewall for a couple more months, that might well do the trick, by way of causing everyone else's spirits to wilt until they go away. So much for Edits that do not apply to the "stable" criterion include [...] good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) [...], as well as complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections. AJ29, I fully respect your decision not to go ahead with the second review (or to review it as a quickfail, perhaps if one would rather say). And as TOD says, indeed rather anticipated it. But generic advice like "The talk page is a good place for that." is, to be reciprocally blunt, redundant, ill-directed, and it seems to be out-of-band. It's also rather a cleft stick to be poking at people, as too much talk-page activity has itself been cited as a quickfail criterion. 109.etc (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the average post on the talk page contains this much unnecessary sarcasm, condescension, and patronising language, it's really not hard to see why no progress is being made. Good luck on Wikipedia in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]