Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tom Quinn (Spooks)/1

Tom Quinn (Spooks) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not Listed In a recent GA review the article was quick-failed due to criteria 1a. After about 3 weeks in a GAR, 3 uninvolved reviewers agreed with the conclusion of the original GA review. The prose needs to improve before a renomination. Aaron north (T/C) 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for reassessment because I didn't think the review was fair. I understand that Jezhotwells has reviewed many articles, but the user quickly failed the article on the basis of poor grammar, and did not seem to bother checking other fields against the GA criteria; did the user check to see if the images were fine? No. What about article stability? Verifiability? Broadness in coverage? No. I acknowledge my grammar is not perfect, but I wouldn't say it was poor; I personally felt a little offended at that comment. I have nominated 13 articles for GA over the past two years, and only 2 of them failed, but not because of grammar, but merely an issue with length of some sections. The user did not put the article on hold either, but I would have addressed the grammar concerns, copyedited it myself and contact another editor to copyedit the article within the seven days if it was on hold. The least I ask is that the other fields of the criteria are checked. I prefer not to wait another two months to wait for another review. Thank you. -- Matthew RD 14:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the prose is poor. I was tempted to copy-edit, but reading through found the grammar to be very bad; I really feel that articles should be ready for review when nominated, and the reviewer should not have to fix elementary problems. Having failed one criterion comprehensively, there is little point in continuing a review. In my experience, enlisting the aid of a good copy-editor can take considerably longer than a week. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the article as it was when reviewed, the prose needed to be overhauled. Improper word use, grammar errors, and clunky paragraphs were found in many places. The examples listed in the review were only a sampling. There's good content in the article, but you would be lucky to find a reviewer willing to go through all that work on the text. So let another editor help you, and relist at GAN. Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold fail. The article would benefit from a rewrite. A number of the statements are not clear - "Fan reaction of the character were positive" / "Macfadyen was keen to explore the parts of Tom from within him for influence" / "In later episodes, a shift in consciousness starts to interfere with Tom's work, such as when he goes undercover to stop a renegade British Army major". The advice to seek a peer review is appropriate, and I'm pleased to see that the nominator has done that. SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold fail The review could have been worded a bit more tactfully to not offend the editors and it may have been helpful to briefly run through the other criteria before failing. However, when the prose needs a lot of work, there is not an obligation to hold the review because that usually takes longer than a week. A GAN should also not be a substitute for a Peer Review. At the very least, an article that is nominated is expected to be almost ready with perhaps a few correctable problems that were not caught by the nominator. Aaron north (T/C) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]