Talk:Anote Tong/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Checklist edit
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- See comments below
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- See comments below
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Formatting looks okay
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- No especially unreliable sources
- C. It contains no original research:
- Conclusions drawn from these sources are definitely unwarranted
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- See comments below
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Most serious problem; written like a resumé in places.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
Comments edit
At the moment, this has quite severe issues with neutrality. It's written a lot like a CV, and there's a lot of repetition of positive information. The article really harps on his climate change activism. It's certainly important enough to cover, but not in the manner done here. I'll go into the specifics below, but given the extent of work required, and the retirement of the nominator, I don't think there's any purpose served by prolonging the review.
- A quote from a musician isn't a testament to his effectiveness, and is undue weight in the lead.
"High Court of Tarawa had confirmed that there was no fraud"
This is also an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice. The High Court is not a reliable source; the only thing that would justify us saying that in Wikipedia's voice is if reliable sources say the same thing.- "Early Life" jumps back and forth; what island he is from should be in the same part of the article as material about his family.
- Repetition and non-chronology again in the first part of "political career"
"Tong also stood front and center
this is puffery- The first paragraph of "Issues" is quite off-topic; based on information in the article at the moment, all Tong has done is to say stuff.
- Material about the marine park is repeated thrice. It's also factually incorrect, or at least needs clarification; [1] suggests there are larger ones around.
- Despite the existence of a section titled "Anote Tong Foundation", there is no information about such a foundation in the article.
- The rest of that section is decidedly undue; a foundation he is a part of requires a few words of description at most, unless it's about work he has done.
- Generally, a lot of the article is a list of his quotes.
- If the repetitious and undue material is pruned, there's very little left.
If anyone watching this is interested in fixing these issues and renominating this page, they should feel free to ping me for a quick review; that way the article does not have to stay in the queue for another lengthy period of time. I am also happy to advise anyone who tries to fix it up. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)