Talk:One Woman's War: Da (Mother)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 02:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a quick fail. No substantial changes have been made since the GA review by Poltair, unless it's the copy edits I just made. Even if I had different readings of the GA requirements, I would still expect the nominator to have addressed the points that were raised and to make an effort to improve the article. This has not happened.

The references are done inconsistently. I made minor tweaks, but more needs to be done. Start by using templates consistently.
There is still very little content, despite the fact that there are a few more sources available, even via a simple Google search, and the sources that are there can be mined better. For instance, this says that there was an animated TV series; I cannot tell if that's the same thing as mentioned in the article since no dates are provided and the source is in Persian. The article doesn't say anything about "animated", though the mention of 120 episodes (really?) may suggest that. This source calls the book "part autobiography and part oral history", something our article doesn't discuss at all: genre is pretty important in such an article. (It also mentions future translations in Urdu and Turkish--did that happen?). This source gives the book one line--"a best-selling memoir by Seyyedeh Zahra Hosseini is a graphic delineation of the liberation of Khorramshahr", but that does not totally jive with what our article says.
The most important point raised in the GA review, about the brother, is not addressed and it's critical. This source calls her the narrator and says the book talks of her life, but seems to be careful about calling her "author".
In all, then, the article fails for a number of reasons, one of them being that the broadness of coverage is simply not there and, worse, I have my doubts, as did the previous reviewers, about the integrity of the text we have right now. I do not understand why the article would be renominated as if the first review never happened. I think the article has GA potential, but it needs more copyediting, more material, more better references. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks for your useful comments on the article. I think you can find the answer to your question of why the article is renominated and why there's no sensible change here, where I have mentioned that I found that review unfair because of concentrating mainly on the "size" and as you know, size is not a good article criterion. While I found your comments useful and practical. I'll try to consider your points before the next nomination. Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]