Talk:Interstate 805/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Philroc (talk · contribs) 11:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well written?:
Fail
- Spelling and grammar correct?:
Pass - Complies with Wikipedia:Manual of style?: Fail
- Spelling and grammar correct?:
- Factually accurate?: Pass
- Contains list of references?: Pass
- Reliable sources?: Pass
- No original research?: Pass
- Contains list of references?:
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Fail
- Addresses main aspects of topic?: Pass
- Doesn't go into unnecessary detail?: Fail
- Addresses main aspects of topic?:
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
- 5. Article stability?: Pass
- 6. Images?: Pass
"Well written" did not pass because spelling and grammar passed, but compling with the MoS didn't because the article used the word "apparent".
"Broad in coverage" didn't pass because addressing the main aspects of the subject passed, but not going into unnecessary detail didn't pass because it did go into unnecessary detail.
I have put this article on hold so that the nominator can fix these problems in 7 days.Philroc (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
(stalking) I chanced upon this review and my jaw just dropped. You've given the nominator next to no idea about how on earth they can fix this article in a state where the next GA should be simple. A far better and more collegial exercise would be to stick this on hold, ask the nominator if they can fix it in 7 days, and if they can't, then you quickfail it. May I suggest you revert the fail and do this? See Talk:Paul Butterfield/GA1 for an example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK! Philroc (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, who nominated this article? Philroc (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rschen7754 according to this diff. The GA bot normally automatically puts a note on the nominator's talk page when you start reviewing, but this message should ping him anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Philroc, I think it would be best if you gained more experience with Wikipedia (such as writing a GA) before actually reviewing an article. If you don't mind, I will be renominating this article and putting it in the queue for another reviewer. --Rschen7754 18:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)