Talk:Ghana/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC) I recently tried cleaning up the article after an editor made some very unsavory edits, denying the citizenship of certain peoples which he evidently had a problem with (including the 2nd & 3rd largest nations within Ghana!), and attacking immigrants, as well as minimizing or eliminating non-Christian religion, which he evidently had a problem with as well. This had infected the entire article, and I suspect that at the very least the encyclopedic tone and structure of the article has been compromised by the edit wars which resulted. Certainly several of my additions were cobbled together to replace the bigotry, but aren't really up to snuff. The same editor made massive additions to the economy section as well, which I am not competent to judge. (For all I know they are perfectly balanced.) One of the problems was which nine languages were government supported: the languages of the peoples he didn't like were removed from the list and from the info box, and others apparently invented to maintain the proper number. I identified the correct languages as best I was able, but based only on 3ary sources that were therefore not sufficient for a GA article, and I tagged my own addition as {{citation needed}}. Now the GA nominator has moved my claim behind an existing ref and removed the tag, but that ref does not support the claim, which is why I hadn't used it in the first place. I think this article will require very careful NPOV review and RS verification before it should be accepted for GA.
- Procedural close. The above is a comment rather than a review and i have copied it to the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Since when is it forbidden to comment on GA nominations?
- Also, the talk page now says the article failed GA review. I don't think that's fair: while I have concerns about the accuracy of the article, I didn't actually fail it, and my opinion shouldn't be sufficient for it to fail anyway. — kwami (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)