Talk:Renewable energy/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]Upon its review on April 7, 2019, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
- contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. Comment: While the article is very broad, many sections need updating. This requires a lot of work (please do it, would be lovely if this article is improved!)
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It would be lovely if we can work towards a good article. I think what we need to do will take quite a while:
- Update article
- Cut out unnecessary details in article (also makes it easier to keep updated)
- Undergo a review
- Undergo copyedit
- Renominate
Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Femke Nijsse Thank you for your review. I will take your advice and begin work soon. Thanks!! Mgasparin (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Mgasparin, one thing to check is MOS:LEAD: among other things, a lead section should hold itself to four paragraphs, and the "well-written" criteria include adherence to the manual of style's lead section guidelines. Another is to be sure that there are adequate numbers of inline source citations for the material. I noticed a number of completely uncited paragraphs, which could be a problem if there is anything controversial or unexpected claimed in them. Best of luck!
- Femke Nijsse, for future reference, reviews should never have more than the very top "GA Review" section have a level-2 section header. Everything within the page should be level-3 or below; I've adjusted your header accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) And, for that matter, I should probably point out that the GA criteria states:
An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review:
... So, it is not accurate to say the article was ineligible for GA consideration: you had the option to do a more complete review if you wished to, but it was certainly eligible to be quickfailed as you did. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)- Thanks, that helps a lot. The reason that it was level two, is that I didn't correct the standard template. Did I put the template on the wrong page? Should I have put it on the talk page directly instead? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is the right page: all review text should be done here. You might have used the "New section" editing choice, which creates a level-2 section and header, rather than hand entering the new level-3 section—it's a matter of three equal signs rather than two around the header. Not a big deal, and very easy to fix (all I did was add an equal sign on each side of the 'Failed "Good Article" nomination' header). BlueMoonset (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that helps a lot. The reason that it was level two, is that I didn't correct the standard template. Did I put the template on the wrong page? Should I have put it on the talk page directly instead? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Femke Nijsse, for future reference, reviews should never have more than the very top "GA Review" section have a level-2 section header. Everything within the page should be level-3 or below; I've adjusted your header accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) And, for that matter, I should probably point out that the GA criteria states: