Talk:Iowa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 00:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

One of my favorite states; looking forward to reading the article! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• A first comment while skimming the article, I feel like the lead may not be an adequate summary. There seem to be sections on "law and government" and "culture" which I don't think is covered in the lead. Also there seems to be an outstanding expansion tag at Iowa#Arts which will need resolved before I can pass the article. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from an independent reviewer

Not easy for a second reviewer to know what you may feel uncomfortable about, but you're probably right that the lead doesn't fully summarize the article.

More serious are the unaddressed 'citation needed' tags (I've added a few more), and the quantity of uncited material towards the end of the article.

I can't see the point of lists in 'Colleges and universities', given there's already a freestanding list of those, so I'd suggest swift removal, and citation of the small remaining text in that section.

'Geology and terrain' needs more citations.

'Climate' is poorly cited.

'Trade and Indian removal, 1814–1832' is uncited.

'Agricultural expansion, 1865–1930' is uncited.

'Political speech' is uncited.

'Arts' as you note is too short, and needs citing.

'Sports' and its several subsections are almost wholly uncited.

'Iowans' is completely uncited. The single-entry 'Further reading' might be better used actually citing some of these 'Iowans', and then that section can be removed.

The 'External links' look a bit scrappy and numerous; again, it would be best to use most of them to cite the text, and remove them from the section.

Citations like 153, 158 are missing most of their parameters.

When those issues are addressed the article may not be perfect but I think it will be covering "the main points" for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW it looks like Helloimahumanbeing is making edits to the article, maybe to address these points, but I wanted to ping them to make sure they were aware of the comments and to encourage them to post something on this page to show if the points are/are not being addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 21:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see Helloimahumanbeing is back! I'm willing to start up the review if you'll be around and editing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I won't be able to make any edits for a while so I'd put the review on hold. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Helloimahumanbeing: Do you have a rough idea of how long "a while" would be? It may be easier to renominate the article when you do have time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Three weeks at most Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not too bad; I'll get to work on this and when you have time we can discuss more. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, Helloimahumanbeing, it's been nearly six weeks, not three, and nothing has happened. I'd suggest closing the nomination, since this is clearly not a good time for it, and renominating later; this has been open for nearly four months. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I've closed the nomination as unsuccessful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)