Talk:Vancouver/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Elephantsandbacon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	After reading through all seems well.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.	Pending
	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).	Quite a lot of citation needed tags
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Want a second opinion on this one

Hi Elephantsandbacon, thanks for reviewing. Is it possible to get more specific notes here? Question mark symbols kinda don't give editors much to work with. The Interior (Talk) 23:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, those are sections in which I haven't reviewed yet. Hope this helps. elphantsandbacon ^{Care to talk?} 10:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize you were still working on it. The Interior (Talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there are numerous {{citation needed}} tags which need to be addressed before this can pass. TB randley 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to relist this if the reviewer does not return to complete the review soon. Mkdw ^talk 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion - The citation needed tags indicate that this article is clearly not ready to be a GA. Just fail the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least two editors (Mkdw and myself) willing to dive in on improvements if we can get some specific notes on work that needs to be done. I'll start on some of the CN tags today. The Interior (Talk) 15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only seeing one remaining CN tag, for this paragraph: Though polarized, a political consensus has emerged in Vancouver around a number of issues. Protection of urban parks, a focus on the development of rapid transit as opposed to a freeway system, a harm reduction approach to illegal drug use, and a general concern about community-based development are examples of policies that have come to have broad support across the political spectrum in Vancouver.[citation needed] This is a broad statement, as such a bit of a sourcing challenge, but I'll work on it. The Interior (Talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count four citation needed tags (found quickly using CTRL+F). The one I checked the date on had been there since December. This suggests to me that the article wasn't closely checked before nomination, and I'd also suggest just failing it for now so that any fixes for these won't be a rush job. I'm glad to see there are editors working to improve this one, though, and I hope it'll be renominated soon! Thanks to everybody for their efforts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original reviewer, elephantsandbacon, has not edited on Wikipedia since April 4 (after making the second opinion request). With four significant "citation needed" tags still on the article, it's clearly not ready. There has been no action on the article to address these tags, despite their having been pointed out weeks ago and again 10 and 9 days ago, so I'm failing it per the prior second opinion recommendations. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]