Talk:Malala Yousafzai/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 11:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This article is ridiculously long. And therefore violates criteria 3B. Sections that require significant trimming/outright removal include:

Criminal investigation
Conspiracy theories
Awards and honors (Seriously, this should be at most 1/3 of its current size)
Early life (Again, this requires a major cut down)

"My purpose is to serve humanity." This box quote should be removed, or at least formatted properly. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and Taliban commanders were still alive" What does that mean? Please clarify, I think we all know taliban commanders are alive. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article also fails to mention her speech at the UN, which is an event she is known globally for. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, I have serious concerns about this article. It has been delisted before and probably won't pass this review either. I'll place it on hold expecting some major improvements be made. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 12:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked on this one previously, but this happens to be an article I'm interested in as one of the 100 most popular WikiProject Human Rights articles. I may see what I can do about addressing the above in the next few days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khazar2 You are most welcome to try, do you want me to leave the GA review open? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I should get to this sometime in the next few days. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To-do for self: reduce unneeded citations in lead -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been working on this for a few hours now, and I think you should fail it. You're right that the level of detail is just too much, while other aspects aren't sufficiently covered; I've now deleted close to half the article's prose, but expanding and making sure things aren't missing is going to take me longer. It's going to be a quite different article by the time I'm done and so probably doesn't meet the stability criterion, even if I got done in a reasonable timeframe.

Thanks for taking the time to review this, and good call on the 3b problems; it makes it easier for me to revise aggressively when a GA reviewer has pointed out the same issues. I do still hope to renominate this in a week or two, but we'll see. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. I'll fail it, (Probably the best option). If you need a reviewer in a week or two or whenever you're done fixing the article, well, you know who to ask! Thanks, ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's very kind of you to offer, but I think it's probably better to get a fresh reviewer just to get as many eyes on this important article as possible. I do appreciate your giving me a push to start revising this one, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]