Talk:Controversies regarding COVID-19 contracts in the United Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mikehawk10 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the review. Will read through over the next hour or so and give feedback. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There do not appear to be copyedit-related issues and the prose is, in general, easy to understand and concise, save for some minor ambiguity issues. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does not accurately summarize all content neutrally. There are a few WP:WTW-related issues throughout, though very little is egregious. Avoid using "scheme" except with well-source malice present; it comes off with a highly negative connotation to many North American English speakers and tends to imply guilt. The editors may also want to describe who saw the Ventilator Challenge as practical and at what time. It's not clear from the text what either of these are. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a references section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See the NPOV section for some specific examples of potentially unreliable sources. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It certainly addresses the topic with respect to the controversies. However, it doesn't really go in-depth into the article's subject with respect to the actual contracts on a broader scale. I'd presume that an article with this title should devote space towards describing noteworthy contracts, the contract process, and the delivery on goods contracted. A good deal is dedicated to what went wrong with certain contracts, though it's not clear that the article's subject is deeply explored outside of that. This article needs expansion with respect to content. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article seems to not really involve any sort of government reply towards any of the allegations of problems. It would be worthwhile to incorporate that into the section on "issues with contracts", which itself feels a bit like a non-neutral title. In particular, the "alleged cronyism" section seems to be devoid of responses to allegations by the living people named and it reads like a litany of sins. I'm also seeing activist sources, such as the Good Law Project, being cited for facts on the size and scope of the contracts without attribution. And, while The Guardian and The Observer are considered generally reliable, many editors would expect attribution in line with WP:BIASED for politics coverage when it's the only source used to support a claim of fact. There also seems to be a rough consensus among editors at the previous RSN discussion that Byline Times is a biased source and should be attributed when used for facts (and it doesn't appear that there's an assumption by the community that the source is generally reliable). Again, attribution is especially important is the case when there is a single source being cited for facts relating to accusations of wrongdoing against living people. There's also spin that seems to take quotes out of context and attributes those quotes to living people. The quote from Verity present in the current version of the article implies that Verity is condemning the contracts as not being "awarded on merit or value" when it's clear from the source that he's only stating that there's an increased risk of this sort of thing when fast-tracking occurs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The edit history looks stable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are no images in this article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are no images in this article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	This is going to be a quick fail per WP:GAFAIL#1—it is a long way from meeting at least one of the six GA criteria. While I haven't evaluated against all criteria yet, the article is most certainly not illustrated by media and has significant NPOV issues. The article's coverage of related topics needs significant broadening and it's not clear that this can be fixed quickly. Taken together, these are fatal. I'll continue to fill this in over the next day or so, in order to provide advice for how to improve the article further regarding the other material, but this piece has a good way to go before it can come close to GA-level. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]