Talk:Ryan-Mark Parsons/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately this will be a quickfail per quickfail reason #1: "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". I see this was nominated by a new-ish user, so I tried to give this the benefit of the doubt. However, it's a very clear-cut case. I understand that Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve so I encourage the user to reach out to me if they have any follow-up questions about my comments, or want me to give advice if they improve the article. I have rated the article Start-Class, so maybe C-Class would be a more attainable short-term goal. The commentary below may come across as harsh but I hope it is read with the thought in mind that GA is a rigorous process and Wikipedia has very strict rules about content about living persons, because someone's Wikipedia article can have a tangible effect on their public life.

Criteria #1 and #4 are the ones the article is furthest from. Major issues include:

• Use of the tabloids Metro, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star are thoroughly inappropriate–see their entries at WP:RSP and note that borderline sources such as the Mirror are thoroughly unreliable for contentious claims about living people, which is how the sources are used here.
• Language throughout is non-neutral, in the style of a tabloid itself. Some illustrative examples.
  • We cannot say that Parsons "was slammed". If the criticism was reliable we could say "was criticised by Reporter Name of Reliable Source Weekly, who believed that Parsons' action of X was 'Y'". In this case the criticism is from an unreliable source so needs removing ASAP.
  • We cannot say that Parsons was "[denounced] for his "vile" and "disgusting" views" without attributing these quotes clearly to their authors, but even then this is sensationalist content. If a source lays out a clear argument that what Parsons said is wrong then we should be quoting the gist of that argument as concisely as possible. If it doesn't then I'm not sure it's reliable.
  • We say that Parsons "revealed" that he is doing charity work and frame the content as unduly positive towards him, particularly for an action he has not actually done; at best we could say "Parsons said in April 2020 that he would aim to complete a skydive to raise money for the NHS in light of the COVID-19 pandemic."
• Per WP:CSECTION, the organisation of content into "Criticisms" is inherently non-neutral; instead content should be streamlined into one "Career" section with content presented chronologically, and criticism of Parsons incorporated into each section.
• Excruciating detail about The Apprentice is inappropriate per WP:IINFO, a problem usually resolved by restricting content to that discussed by reliable sources, as such sources will highlight only the important content or exceptional events, rather than the routine.

— Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv, thank you for the review and all of the feedback. I'll be gradually working on the recommendations and hopefully the article can move to C-Class after. I will contact you if I have any further questions and I really do appreciate the time taken to write this. JPA24 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)