Talk:Star Watch Case Company/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MatthewMcFly (talk · contribs) 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friends! Just wanted to let you know I will be reviewing this article for GA status. Thanks! MatthewMcFly (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Watch Case Company/GA2 was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 27, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The length of the article is not nearly long enough that it could possibly encompass the subject to the level of a GA-class article. I would encourage you to work on the article until it is brought to B-class. Then, I would begin thinking about renominating.

Hey MatthewMcFly Thanks for reviewing Star Watch Case Company. Can you help me? There is no criterion for "article length" for a GAN. The essay says the article should not "...be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic...." Can you be a little more specific? What do you think might be missing? I don't want to add padding. Cleveland Todd (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I was very unclear and incorrect on my comment concerning article length. I was somewhat inexperienced when I wrote the review and completely forgot to elaborate. Just replying to say I am looking into it, and a more detailed comment is coming soon! (It has been a while since I first reviewed it, so I'll need sometime to inspect the content again.)

Thanks, MatthewMcFly (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewMcFly Thanks. Looking forward to your suggestions. Cleveland Todd (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewMcFly:It's been over a month since we talked about your reviewing this article. Are you going to do it? Or should I just resubmit for GAN? Hope all is well with you. Cleveland Todd (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've been up to my neck in college work, but I will look at it over the weekend. I sincerely apologize for making you wait this long and appreaciate your concern. Thanks, MatthewMcFly (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: Please see reply from MatthewMcFly above. Cleveland Todd (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, would you suggest I write in this page or in the general article talk page? MatthewMcFly (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewMcFly: I suggest you write in this page of GA2, which is under the header title GA Review. Thanks, creator of article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will write it here.

There are six criteria for good article status, so I will go through each one and determine if the article meets said criteria:

page I used for my eligibility determinations: Wikipedia:Good article criteria

1 Well written: Somewhat

The grammar and prose is correct for the most part, but many of the sections are either 1) not long or important enough to warrant its own section, or 2) do not encompass the subject of the section. Specifically, the lead section does not adequately summarize the entire article. Many sections have lists of companies, or different styles of watches. This seems to be padding and unnecessary information. MatthewMcFly (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewMcFly:

Done All issues addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]