Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

It doesn't seem that there were any major changes since the last GA nom (diff), particularly with regards to the prose. The entire article seems to lack an encyclopedic tone seeming more like a narrative in structure and in style. I feel like there is both unneccesary and possibly undue diversion into his political opinions. I mean, he is notable for his writing, right? I mean, the lead lists him as "a Brazilian journalist, political pundit, novelist and critic." Yet the article overwhelmingly focuses on the intimate details of his political philosophy with only minor mention of his journalism and criticism work and the discussion of his fiction writing was so thick that I could barely read or understand it. As stated in the previous review, selected works are inherently non-neutral and a form of cherry-picking. I think this article is in severe need of a peer review and copy edit, as well as a massive trim to its prose size.

Results

Second Opinion I think this article is a very long way from satisfying criteria 1, 3, and 4, however I'm wary of a quick fail because I don't have particularly concrete suggestions on how to improve it. I'm going to see if another editor would be willing to give the article a look over and what their opinion would be. Wugapodes (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous review specifically recommended either peer review or copyedit, and neither has been done, I don't see why this shouldn't be closed immediately. All of the warning templates added to the article after that GAN review were removed by the nominator immediately prior to nominating for this one, even thought the article lede had clearly not been made longer and still did not meet the GA requirements. I have gone to the Guild of Copy Editors requests page to specifically request a review of Paulo Francis, since the "LoCE request" template on the talk page hasn't attracted a copyedit in over three years (I've now removed it, per GOCE instructions). Once that's done I think the nominator should then request a peer review, since the copyedit doesn't deal with all of the criteria you've identified as unsatisfied. This article should not be nominated again before both copyedit and peer review are completed and acted on. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed I agree with BlueMoonset and so am closing this as not listed. Wugapodes (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]