Talk:GI Underground Press/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 13:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So first of all let me say this an amazing amount of work. And just the sort of thing that wikipedia should have. As a zinester myself, I'm fascinated to read about the GI underground press. However, with my GA reviewer hat on, I am immediately encountering problems and so I will quick fail this nomination. In short, this article needs a lot of work to be a GA, but it's of course possible and please don't be discouraged. Correct me if I'm wrong I think this is your first GA nomination so I'm happy to talk through anything that isn't clear on the talkpage. I'll list some issues here :

There are too many unreferenced sentences. This is the quickfail since i cannot verify all the information in the article (GA criterion 2). I've marked the unreferenced parts with "citation needed" tags as I go

There are also sections which are inappropriately referenced .. let me give this one as an example: the Progressive Labor Party section has a big paragraph including direct quotes and then has 4 references at the end. i'd expect references on the quotes at the very least and I'd like other refs to be dotted around the paragraph for ease of checking. apart from any other reason for saying this, let's take a hypothetical - if someone adds a sentence in the middle of the paragraph and references it to another soure, then where is everything that comes before that sentence now referenced to?

The tone of the article is not currently encyclopaedic, with words like "probably", "presumably", "likely" etc

The lead would need to be several paragraphs long to adequately summarise this article. also there are references in the lead currently, which should not be necessary since the lead should be summarising the article body and the referenced information should be there instead (per MOS:LEAD)

The article is way too big (as already mentioned on the talkpage). The table deserves its own page, and indeed if you made that page you could then submit it as a featured list in its own right (once everything was cited of course). Might you want to do that? well, that's up to you ... as the main contributor you might decide that rather than changing the article to get the GA or FL accreditation, you would rather have the page the way it is right now. That's not a problem. Or alternatively you can take the article to peer review and see what people have to say about it there.

It's a admittedly a minor issue compared to the others above, but the "see also" section is too big, I'd suggest trimming it and/or integrating the links into the text Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mujinga for your review. As you mentioned, this is my first GA nomination and I appreciate your helpful comments. I will review them and make the appropriate changes. I also appreciate your willingness to help and will likely reach out to you as I review.JohnKent (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and good luck with it. Incidentally, I saw the discussion with Gog the Mild on your talkpage about the Court-martial of Susan Schnall. On a quick skim, that looks like a great one to try out for GA, especially if Gog is offering to review it. Mujinga (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for pointing this out. When I originally read Gog's comment I appreciated it, of course, but I didn't know what GAN meant. Now I do, and I think I will take his advice. I love Wikipedia people.JohnKent (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]