Talk:N-Power

N-Power was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 6, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:N-Power/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: F5pillar (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Support this is good as (good article), it should be kept as (G.A). 'respect' (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 13:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion Responding to the request for a 2nd opinion. My initial fear was that of copyvio after a run through Earwig's detector, however, revisions of this page predate the detected sources, and I am going to conclude that the suspected violations were in fact taken from the Wikipedia article as source material. That being said, however, the article appears to be a bit away from meeting the 6 GA criteria, most notably 1a and 3a. With respect to 1a, the prose of the article does not consistently read smoothly throughout. For example, the very start of the article reading as "The N-Power is a scheme..." which does not require the definite article "the" at the beginning. Throughout the article, a light cleanup for grammar appears to be in order. Many of the minor 1a criteria could be overlooked, or get lost in the article, however, if it were not for the more pressing issues arising from 3a. This article does not cover broadly enough the scope of the N-Power initiative in Nigeria. While the info box is a comprehensive executive summary, that is the extent to which most of the article covers. The initial assessment by Project Nigeria seems to remain accurate, as the description for a C-Class article applies best to the article thus far. Babegriev (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3rd opinion − concur with Babegriev regarding criteria 3a, notably no analysis is presented regarding the effectiveness of the program or whether it reached its stated objectives. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nnadigoodluck Hi, in case you weren't following it looks like there have been some comments here. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Babegriev and Goldsztajn: I've started the cleanup of the article per your review comments. —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nnadigoodluck: as far as I can see, it does not appear that any substantial changes to the article have been made addressing the comments here. If you think you can address these in the next 7 days, please leave a message, otherwise it will be better to close as a fail. Courtesy pings: Babegriev, buidhe. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No responses or subsequent changes to the article, closing as a fail. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.