Talk:Times New Roman/GA1

GA Review

GAN failed. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: QEDK (talk · contribs) 05:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@Blythwood: As a start, can you work on the lede, it needs to be greatly reduced, and citations don't need to be present in the lead, it should only generally state the information in the rest of the article. The third paragraph should ideally be merged into the second. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QEDK, no problem. I'll give it another rewrite and come back to you. Blythwood (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, I've been thinking about this nomination and come to the conclusion that although I've made major improvements to the article I just don't have the bandwidth right now to focus on working through a review. I'm still planning to raise the article to GA and have totally reformatted the citations, but I've realised that the article wasn't anything like as good as I thought it was, and there are sources that need to be in the article in more depth. I don't think it's appropriate to keep it in the review process indefinitely. Many thanks for your advice and help, though. Blythwood (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Blythwood: No worries, feel free to start another GAN when ready, good luck! :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some more points at broad strokes:
- Long and rambling captions should be replaced with succinct ones. (WP:MOSCAPSUCCINCT)
- Short sections should be merged or expanded. (for e.g. Times New Roman#Claritas)
- Remove unsourced statements or source them (for e.g. It has not been digitised. in Times New Roman#Times Hever Titling)
- Fails MOSBRACKET in some places (fixed one of them) and refers to things like "discussed above" which are not ideal.
That's not a comprehensive review but a needed start for the next GAN. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.