Talk:Navarre, Florida/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FLVSstudent417 (talk · contribs) 14:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Review

Many citations and references to ensure accuracy
No major spelling or grammar mistakes, so far as I can tell
Outlook on Good Article Review Approval: Good

Final Review

Approved:

To the best of my knowledge, article meets all six criteria needed according to Wikipedia: Good Article

Broad in Coverage

Covers large strokes of the information about Navarre, Florida, as well as the surrounding communities. Clearly covers information about history, politics, geography, education, and demographics.

Citations

All citations in order, all are verifiable, and aid to the vindication of the article. All material factual and verifiable.

Copyrights

No copyright infringements, all writing is done in the editors own words, and is not taken from any website checked.

Spelling and Grammar

No spelling and grammar mistakes found, all of the article seems to flow quite nicely from one point and topic to the next.

Point of View

Clearly neutral point of view, with no bias found or foreseen in any part of the article as a whole.

Stable

Edited often, but no edit war found in the recent (as far back as two years) edit history of the page. Almost all edits are for progressing the article, little to no found incidents of vandalism, in recent edit history.

Congrats

Thank you, user: Navarre0107, for nominating this page. It is a great example to Wikipedia, and hopefully can be used as a blueprint for the articles of other communities in the Navarre area.

--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening review

Unfortunately, the above review was not adequate; at first glance, I can see that it missed a number of issues with the GA criteria, including under number 1 (Well written): not merely grammatical issues, though there are several (for example, the opening sentence of Demographics), as part of 1a, but also the manual of style issues for the sections listed under 1b, including layout, which talks about not having very short paragraphs or single-paragraph subsections, something the article has a fair amount of.

When I ran the Earwig copyvio checker, it came up with a website that has a significant amount of identical content, particularly in the Attractions subsection. While this may be a case of the site copying from Wikipedia, the fact that it wasn't mentioned at all in the review, even to query the nominator, Navarre0107, is troubling. Also troubling is the fact that the review said that all citations were in order when the second Attractions paragraph ends with a "citation needed" template. No article should pass GA with a citation needed template still open, since it's a sign that verifiability still needs work.

Criterion 6, which deals with images, is not addressed at all. This it too bad, because 6b requires that images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions, and the captions here do not meet the criteria, being generally too long and confusingly worded for the first and third images in the Attractions section, while the caption for the Popular culture image seems to be incorrect, mentioning a "clean-up".

When I saw the number of issues with this review after a fairly quick check, I reverted the premature GA listing of the article, and reopened the review temporarily. FLVSstudent417, you are a fairly new editor with fewer than 70 edits; GA reviewers typically have at least a few hundred edits under their belts and some experience of the GAN process before they start reviewing. With all due respect, based on the above review you don't have the depth of understanding of the GA criteria and how to apply them to adequately conduct a GA review. I'd like to suggest that this review be ended, and the nomination placed back into the pool of nominations awaiting a reviewer, hopefully an experienced one.

Thank you both for your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will take over the review if FLVSstudent417 agrees. In addition to BlueMoonsets points above there is also an outstanding merge request, which calls into question the articles stability. AIRcorn (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, it has been over seven days without a response for FLVSstudent417, who hasn't edited on Wikipedia since their review above. At this point, I think we have to assume that they will not be responding, and that you are clear to take over the review. If you would prefer not to, then I will close the review and place the nomination back into the pool to await a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a message at Navarre0107's talk page. If they don't respond we may as well fail it based on the above issues instead of re-adding it to the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn:, I do believe this to be a fair and decent article, and ready for reaching great article status. As for the Earwig copyvio editor that has been previously mentioned as finding closely similar writings in both the article, and in other webpages, I must disagree, unless it has been edited from last time I checked, I hadn't found any plagiarized or even similarly written writings within this article. Could you please advise on which paragraphs the program suggested to be copied, so I can address that immediately? --Navarre0107 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing much to worry about on earwig myself. Not too concerned about the length of the image captions either, although they will need references for some of the statements (unless they are referenced in the body). Can you complete the merge before I do the main review as I would rather review the article after the beach info is added. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have done the merge myself. That makes me involved in the article so I will not review it. It has also introduced a lot of unsourced information, which is why it needed to be done before the review. It will be easier to fail it now so it can be nominated again and another reviewer can pick it up. Please source the beach info and make sure it fits in with the rest of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Thank you so much for your help, I will get to sourcing and copyediting as soon as I can-- Navarre0107 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]