Talk:2007–08 Sunderland A.F.C. season/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Sunderland06 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is a nice piece of work, and a bit of a hell for a reviewer!
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- some bits are close to WP:NOR
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Sorry guys.. The rational is that you can find a tonne of images under Fair-use and its slightly biased towards the other teams.
-
- Um, so is that a pass? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Sorry... its a fail... User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not, until you provide a reason(s) why. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- There you go... the article is on hold... i just couldn't get the template to work correctly. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- But you still have yet to provide a rationale for your actions. The nominator is expected to know what you find concerning about the article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Happy? User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, no. Your job as a reviewer is to list the concerns you have about the article, in order for the nominator to know what to fix. Images are not a requirement for GA, so that is not a valid reason to place an article on-hold. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Happy? User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- But you still have yet to provide a rationale for your actions. The nominator is expected to know what you find concerning about the article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- There you go... the article is on hold... i just couldn't get the template to work correctly. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's not, until you provide a reason(s) why. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry... its a fail... User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(out) Yeah, Itfc, you really need to be specific. For example, you can't just say "some bits are close to OR"--you have to say what bits are close to OR and how. Check out Dana Boomer for an excellent GA reviewer who is very, very specific about her concerns. [ roux ] [x] 22:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Its been failed as it has been over 7 days since the GA review and there has not been enough improvments... i'm gonna run away from Gaing now.... User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 11:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, but theres no reason to give up reviewing GACs, just take your time, read through Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and possibly seek getting a reviewing mentor. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)