Talk:John Major/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really, really sorry to have to do this, but I'm going to have to fail this article. This is a shame as it has been waiting such a long time, but I'm afraid it's almost unavoidable. I notice that the nominator's talk page says that they are no longer very active, but also that the nominator had no contributions to the article until the day it was nominated.

The main reason that I have to fail this article is that it is unreferenced in many places—an article cannot be a GA in this condition. The Early life section seems fine, and uses Major's autobiography (I think this is the section on which the nominator worked). But the article then goes from several unreferenced sentences to unreferenced paragraphs, to whole sections ("Sleaze"). In addition, there are several POV terms, such as "debilitating scandals", "This approach stood in contrast to the Labour Party's seemingly slicker campaign and it chimed with the electorate, along with hard-hitting negative campaign advertising focusing on the issue of Labour's approach to taxation [my italics]", or "and disastrous defeat at a by-election". There are several others.

On a more general level, I would have expected to read a little more on his time as Chancellor, the Gulf War, and maybe more on the 1995 leadership election. But I have not read the whole article in enough detail to say more about this. And maybe his autobiography could be used more effectively. Are there any other books sources which could be used?

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose seems fine, but should be checked more closely if the article is renominated. I did not check for MOS compliance.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Many unreferenced sentences, paragraphs and sections. This is the biggest issue, the article could not pass in this state and it requires substantial work. With so much unreferenced, I have to assume OR; the sources used seem to be good quality, but many more are needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage seems to be OK, but again, this needs checking once references are added, and there are one or two areas where I would expect to see more (see above).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Generally OK, but a few POV issues in places.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An unreferenced article like this cannot be a GA without substantial work. I'm afraid there is too much to do in the timespan of a GA review. I would suggest working on the article and then re-nominating. I am sorry the long wait was in vain.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)