Talk:Robin Hood tax/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. I will begin this review in two days, familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose does not read discursively. Prose is disjointed and not concise. The actual measures proposed are not explained.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede is unclear as to the specific taxes proposed and the scope of the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Few instances of unsourced sections; several instances of uses of sources directly from the campaign. Additionally, several web sources are not dated.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	For the most part, with the above caveats.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Hard to determine given the comments made below about readability and scope.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It is hard to make this judgement given the comments made below about readability and scope.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article, which is focused on the Robin Hood tax campaign, focuses greatly on FTT, which is covered in a separate article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The lack of discursive narrative on emphasis on proposed benefits impacts on neutrality, as does the chronological listings of endorsing parties.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Main image has an active copyright flag.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

This article could be improved by linking the prose together discursively, significantly trimming the prose size, removing the copyright-flagged image, and altering sources, and indicating dates of access of sources. I would also suggest

• Rename this article to "Robin Hood tax (UK campaigning group)", or another disambiguating title, in order to help define this article's scope, and removing much of the FTT information. I feel that the ambiguity of scope is a significant factor in the problems mentioned earlier regarding quality.

I apologise on behalf of other reviewers for the length delay between nomination and review, and am happy to provide extra feedback. Given the length delay, I'll wait for a response (maximum two weeks!) before closing this review. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

With no response and some time constraints on my part, I've closed this review. I'd encourage renomination when the above issues are addressed. The WP:peer review process may be used to get feedback when editing the article. LT910001 (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)