Talk:Leonensia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs) 17:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we shift the interwiki links to use {{ill}}? That way we can know which articles need creating.

I did this to the best of my ability. It's sometimes unclear what a corresponding English article title should be, so for some of these I've done it as in the following sentence: "It was founded in 1871 and ranks among Central Europe's oldest (de) non-couleur-wearing fraternities." Not ideal, but I figured it's better than nothing. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the reflist for you to make this a bit easier to manage the references, also converted to use {{authority control}}
Can you convert to better citation parameters? In particular, use the pp. or p parameters, and can we get a translation of the German titles into the references?
Can you translate the German titles in the further reading section?

Overall, a very interesting article though! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supraios and Chris.sherlock, just checking in on the status of this. Supraios has not edited since July 2019, so a return to this nomination in the foreseeable future seems unlikely. Chris.sherlock, if the above comments are all you think stands between this and the article passing, I think it's possible to salvage the nomination; I already mostly took care of the first point, could do citation parameters as well, and we could probably find someone to take care of the translations. But if more substantive comments await, it may be hard to avoid failing the nomination. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, I pinged Chris.sherlock on their talk page a couple of days ago; I hope to see a response soon. However, having just read quickly through the article, I can see that it has some significant basic problems. The prose is not clear and concise (the sentences are not always complete ones, at least one word doesn't exist in English, and there's a lot of terminology to wade through), the lead section does not meet MOS:LEAD in terms of summarizing the main points of the article and general length, and the coverage is not sufficiently broad: there's very little from the post-WW2 years, and nothing at all from the past 50 years. We should at least get a sense of how large it is now, and what it does today. Absent someone willing to do significant work on the article, I don't see how it can pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of references needed too. I am thinking this should probably be failed at this point. Chris has been editing since BlueMoonset messaged them and there is no response likely from the nominator. @Chris.sherlock, Supraios, and Usernameunique: AIRcorn (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, sorry got a bit distracted. The points made have been reasonable, unfortunately I don't think this can pass GA. A valiant effort on the article nonetheless! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris.sherlock, if you don't think it can pass GA, then the thing to do is for you to close the review as failing; there's no time like the present. See WP:GANI#Failing for the steps you need to take. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been over nine days since the above, and Chris.sherlock hasn't edited for nearly a week, I will proceed with failing the nomination, as Chris.sherlock thought it could not pass, and I concur that it fails to meet a number of the criteria at present. The article has not been edited in a month's time, since Usernameunique made the edits mentioned above on April 19. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]