Talk:Stop the War Coalition/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA Sweeps: On hold
[edit]As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.
- The tag at the top of the page needs to be addressed. The article has been tagged since last month.
- All of the citation needed tags need to be addressed. The "Key messages" section is completely unsourced.
- The article has multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.
- The external link in the "Criticisms" section needs to be either converted to a citation or moved to the external links section.
- Some of the citations need be more descriptive. Include the author, title, date, publisher, accessdate, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help.
This article covers the topic well and has several free images. I will review the prose of the article once the above issues are addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- As it stands, I'd be hard pressed even to give this article a "B" rating, given its lack of citations. In addition to the problems mentioned by Nehrams:
- the lead also fails GA, as it is not a stand-alone summary of the article.
- the writing style and the flow and layout of the article need to be improved.
- I've made a small start, but other commitments mean I'm unlikely to be able to fix all the problems within a week (or, probably, even longer).
- --NSH001 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps: Delisted
[edit]Per the above comments, it appears that the issues will not be able to be addressed in the coming weeks. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. I'll be happy to re-review the article or at least give it another look if you want to nominate it at GAN. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- A bit hasty, maybe? I doubt I could fix it on my own in a week or so, but if a couple of other editors were to appear? --NSH001 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was initially going to delist this from the beginning, but had figured that if it could be fixed quickly, then I'd leave it on hold. However, if it's going to take several weeks, then it should be delisted now. If the article's above issues are addressed, it can easily be re-nominated at GAN. Another thing that has to be considered is that the article's current state is still available to readers. If they saw the issues that are mentioned as well as the fact that it is labeled as a GA, this would hurt the reputation of the GA process and Wikipedia in general. If several editors do pull together and help improve the article, I will be happy to re-review the article once the changes are made. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- More a question of motivation, I think. I'm happy enough to put in some solid effort over a couple of days, in the hope that someone else might appear to help me out. Anti-war articles can be hard to work on because of the shortage of good sources; mainstream WP:RS are usually biased against the anti-war position and are often, in my experience, inaccurate. In your position, I would have given it a couple of days to see if someone else appeared, and then delisted it. As I see it, I now don't have the incentive any longer to put in the solid work necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see that as a lack of incentive. To return the article to its former GA status should be motivational enough. I don't think you need to give up on the article solely because it is delisted. This article was passed back in 2005 and since then the standards for the criteria have changed considerably. It is inevitable that updates and new sources were needed. Even if re-attaining GA status isn't motivational, improving the article's content compared to what it is now, should be. I never delist articles just to do so, but to ensure the criteria is met. I've seen many articles improved and returned to GA status, and sometimes it does take longer than a few weeks. If there are issues with the delisting, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. Keep looking for sources, as although some may be biased, there should be plenty available that are not. Look for websites, newspapers, books, journals, etc. Consider asking members of the related WikiProjects to help find the sources needed to improve the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- More a question of motivation, I think. I'm happy enough to put in some solid effort over a couple of days, in the hope that someone else might appear to help me out. Anti-war articles can be hard to work on because of the shortage of good sources; mainstream WP:RS are usually biased against the anti-war position and are often, in my experience, inaccurate. In your position, I would have given it a couple of days to see if someone else appeared, and then delisted it. As I see it, I now don't have the incentive any longer to put in the solid work necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was initially going to delist this from the beginning, but had figured that if it could be fixed quickly, then I'd leave it on hold. However, if it's going to take several weeks, then it should be delisted now. If the article's above issues are addressed, it can easily be re-nominated at GAN. Another thing that has to be considered is that the article's current state is still available to readers. If they saw the issues that are mentioned as well as the fact that it is labeled as a GA, this would hurt the reputation of the GA process and Wikipedia in general. If several editors do pull together and help improve the article, I will be happy to re-review the article once the changes are made. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I must say that I was surprised when the sweep was mentioned. I hadn't realised that this was a GA and my immediate reaction was that here was a delist coming.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)