Talk:Lopota incident/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the nominator is currently blocked. He won't be able to respond for at least another week.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's good to know. Niemti, with you being both the main editor and the nominator, I think that you'd be the main one to converse on this. No hurry....when you get back and get a chance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, Niemti has now been blocked from participating in the GAN/GAR of any article, so he can no longer provide input at this review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I'll have to proceed accordingly. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

Article has no images. ~~Would it be feasible (vs. very difficult) to add an image or two? Maybe a map? (which would also make it easier to absorb/understand)?~~ Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation, I can't/shouldn't post anything that requires a conversation. So I need to post it differently. Article has no images and I think it reasonable to expect that it have at least one image. Even just a map of Georgia and bordering countries would be a big help. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under media theories, a person referred to as Rustan appears to be Ruslan. Suggest clarification....are they both correct names for the same person?

The lead is not really a summary of the article. Most of it is some specialized facts. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status summary

The authors (and particularly Niemti) have done a large amount of excellent work on this article! And it is on a very encyclopedia topic that would probably not otherwise be covered. So it is a very nice addition to Wikipedia. During the review process I fixed a number of small things (such as grammar) that were limited based on my lack of expertise in this field. Subsequently, it was noted that the main author and nominator was at first blocked, and then later restricted from participating in any GA review. I don't know where that is, or the details of it, but it appears to be correct. I have avoided approaching them as such could push them into a violation of the restriction. IMO, two of the open items discussed above (images and the lead) are significant enough that I could not correctly pass this as a good article with either of them unresolved. With my lack of expertise and sources on the topic, I could not fix those things myself without embarking on a larger learning and searching process. I'm going to leave this open another week and if those are not resolved I'll be forced to non-pass this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above I have waited a week and per above I am forced to non-pass this article. Per above, the authors (and particularly Niemti) have done a large amount of excellent work on this article! And it is on a very encyclopedia topic that would probably not otherwise be covered. And so I hope that this can become a GA Good article in the future. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

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

Meets this criteria. Article appears to be SO cautious in this respect (avoiding summaries) that at times it makes it hard to read/absorb. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Per above, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least one image (even a map) and so it does not currently meet this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

See "status summary" section above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]