Talk:Great Tenasserim River/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Since at least November 2010, according to the most recent revisions, the article has not been subjected to any disruptive editing behaviours such as edit warring. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All four images used in the article at this time are freely licensed, and serve illustrative purposes relevant to the subject. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

Alright, so I'm finally going to try to get this review done. Having begun reading with the section "Fish fauna", I feel that I should work on this one section at a time, and then make any commentary I deem necessary afterwards. So, for starters:

"Fish fauna" This section's wording needed a great deal of revamping. Between the way it read in this revision, before I copyedited it, and the way it reads at the time of this post, you can see that the grammar and tone has become much more in keeping with MOS policy, although I think that due to my having all but rewritten it, I shall need to request a second opinion when this is done. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Intro" This section's grammar also left a fair bit to be desired, and I'm still concerned about the sentence which begins with "The region formed by this river is also known as Tenasserim, Tanintharyi in Burmese...", specifically because it seems to list "Tanintharyi" as an alternate name for the region, even though it has already been referred to with that name earlier on in that same paragraph. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Geography" Again, the "before photo" and the "after photo". I'm still a little worried about the effect of some of the short sentences on the flow of the paragraph, but I personally can allow for the fact that this sometimes cannot be helped. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"History" This one was arguably the best-written section I've read in this article as of yet, but I still found a few adjustments necessary. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Economic development" Hoo boy...
- "Lead paragraph" This alone required a fair bit of copyediting. I'm hesitant to remove the "As a result..." that begins the fifth sentence, even though it currently does not make sense in the context, as the writer may have intended for there to be something this would tie into. I would prefer to hear back from them, first. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Resources" From this, I made some adjustments, but it honestly started to get overwhelming after that. I'm going to read the last section to go, and see what I can do about that, but this is starting to make me dizzy. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hydroelectric power" Before and after; I didn't do much more than format a couple of run-on sentences. As I said in the summary of my last edit on the section, I'm scared to do much more because I honestly can't figure out what is supposed to be past-tense and what if anything actually should be in present-tense. Tying in with this, there is the suspicion on my part that at least some of the information, with the way it's currently worded, is out-dated. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So all of the above constitutes my reasoning for seeking a second opinion for this review. A few factors made the article look like a promising candidate when I took this review on, but having read through its content, I honestly don't know how this article, especially in the form I found it in, could have been deemed ready for nomination as a GA. That being said, I'd still like to think there is hope for it, in the duration of its present nomination, and as the one who took it on I intend to carry this through as far as it can feasibly be taken, regardless of the outcome. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Seeing as no one has replied yet, I might as well take this opportunity to clarify what I am seeking a second opinion on, specifically. I'm hoping that a third party with reasonable experience with reviewing GANs could give input on three correlative things, following my review of the content as I described above. A. The quality of my copyediting, especially in the areas I practically rewrote; while I'd like to be vain and assume I know absolutely the best way to write for Wikipedia, I like to think I at least know better than that! B. Whether it is worth it to try to more thoroughly copyedit the rest of the article's content as needed, if the nominator cannot be persuaded to do so, or: C. If this nomination should ultimately just be failed as of this point, so everyone involved can just move on. Again, I appreciate any offered assistance in advance. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final update: Since it has now been a month since my original request for a second opinion, and I have neither received one, nor even received any commentary from the nominator themself, I think the best thing to do may be to fail the nomination after all. Citing a couple select results from past experience, it is clear that there is a lack of investment, at this time, in making this article of GA quality, which is unfortunate as like I've said before, it does bear potential. Hopefully sometime down the road it will receive the attention it deserves, and be ready for a second nomination. I shall now open the doors for that. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]