Talk:West Coast Customs/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 22, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
- Good job on the research and the citations for asserted statements of fact. Some work to be done but I'm confident the article contributors can fix these issues over time. Keep in mind these recommendations before going for another review. Good luck !
- Overall, the article comes off as a bit too promotional in tone.
- Let's look at the introduction section. Way too much WP:Overlinking, that makes the introduction section virtually unreadable. It also comes across as name-dropping, like, oooh, look who we did business with, look at all these blue-linked names of other companies ! I would suggest trimming those down to maybe three name-drops total in the introducton section.
- Also, the introduction fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section -- it is not a good summary of the entire article. The introduction basically: Name-drops a crap-ton of companies, mentions nice locations where it has franchises -- and then fails to summarize all the other sections of the article. Very little about: "History", "Location changes", and "Controversies", and "Franchises".
- 2. Verifiable?:
- Does not appear that WP:Citation templates are being used in the correct manner, or even in the same manner, from one citation to the next.
- Problems with lack of standardization in the citations. Some have works italicized, some do not.
- Example for the first cite, should italicize Los Angeles Times, but does not, but other cites do.
- Cite 45 has problems, not enough info here.
- Cite 47 appears to be WP:Original research, might want to check with WP:RSN to see if that is okay in this one particular instance.
- Cite 48 does not mention enough info on name of the original website, original hyperlink, etc.
- 3. Broad in coverage?:
Pass - 4. Neutral point of view?:
- Problems with neutrality as noted in discussion about introduction, above.
- Concerns about violations of WP:NPOV with the pushing of all the negative stuff into a "Controversies" section.
- Strongly recommend integrating all "Controversies" related info directly into the "History" section, in chronological order as it occurred over time.
- Then, once that's done, go back and expand the introduction per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section -- to a sufficient size so it can be a summary of the entire article body text.
- Right now, for some reason, the introduction appears to be tacitly ignoring a great deal of article body content in the form of the "Controversies" information, and that violates WP:NPOV.
- 5. Stable?: Lots of changes recently, but aside from some IP address, not seeing edit history warring or conflicts. Talk page history shows a good faith attempt at explanation by the GA nominator, with no response, so good effort here.
- 6. Images?:
- File:West Coast Customs.png good fair use rationale.
- Three free-use images hosted on Wikimedia Commons, all check out okay.
Overall, nice effort so far on the research. Major concerns include WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, fixes to increase standardization in use of WP:Citation templates, and fix the introduction to avoid a promotional tone. Best practice might be to bring in a couple of copy editors who are previously uninvolved on the article and previously not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Good luck !
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that I've taken all of your suggestions into account. Especially you're pushing me to find more negative content was a help, while it was challenging to think of keywords, I found a wealth of content critical of the subject which I added to the current version of the article. I hope the article will pass this time.
--Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
