Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Revoked. Original GA was determined to have been by a sockpuppet, so GA listing was revoked; closing this well after the fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The article was first nominated for GA status here on January 10, 2017 by Hashim-afc, the nomination was subsequently removed by Hashim-afc here on the January 27, 2017, and then the article was renominated by Hashim-afc here on March 24, 2017. A GA review for the article was started here on March 24, 2017 at 05:48 (UTC+9) by Yakaba99, an account which was only created two miniutes before on March 24, 2017 at 05:48 (UTC+9). The second edit made anywhere on Wikiepdia by Yakaba99 was to start a GA article review. Not only does this seem suspicious both timing and account wise, it also seems questionable that an editor with no history of any editing of Wikipedia articles is the best person to review an article for GA status. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a GA of an article could be properly completed by such an editor in a single day.
As for specifics about the article, in Talk:Al-Shorta SC#Conclusion, Yakaba99 states that The images are all relevant and have suitable captions as well as fair use rationales where appropriate.
. However, assessing non-free image use is complicated even for experienced editors and, as I posted at here, there are specific concerns with the way some of the non-free images are being used in the article. These are things that a new editor would probably not be very familiar with, so perhaps require further discusion. It's possible that if the non-free images whose use is questionable are simply removed, then the article would still qualify for GA. However, I think it would be better for more experienced GA reviewers to asses the article and make that determination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Marchjuly (talk · contribs). The first thing I would like to say is that I did not create an account 2 minutes before I started the review. I created a user page two minutes before I started the review so that people who saw the review could know more about me as this was my first edit. I am a massive football fan and have been reading Wikipedia for years and know a lot about it (I have made many IP edits) and now I want to get involved in helping improve football articles so I created an account. I knew about good articles from reading about them before and I decided to review Al-Shorta SC as this is about a football club, and GA article reviews always lead to pages being improved. I am also going to review the India national football team article soon, which was nominated to be a good article a few days ago, and am hoping to review a lot more football-related articles as I want to improve them. I have read a lot of good article reviews in the past so I know how to do them effectively. A lot of the GA reviews I came across are completed in one or two days; if you have a lot of free time on your hands this really isn't difficult! I can promise that I am not a sock-puppet of User:Hashim-afc and I did my best to give an honest review and pointed out a lot of issues in the article to improve. I also pointed out that I wasn't sure that the use of non-free logos in this article was correct, but in truth I forgot about it the day after which I take responsibility for. I still believe the article would qualify to be a GA article if these non-free logos were removed as they are not essential to the article. But I am absolutely fine if you want a more experienced editor to make the assessment, it makes sense. While I may be a new user in that I only created an account recently, I have been editing Wikipedia as an IP for a long time and am familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policies. Yakaba99 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)