Talk:Antara (news agency)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. It's my pleasure to have the article reviewed by a prolific quality contributor. I look forward to your comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 21, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing is pretty good, suggest leaving request with WP:GOCE for copyediting.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?:

1. Missing: Analysis or Reception section, with secondary sources commenting on how the organization has been perceived over time.
2. See also: Can more links be added to the See also sect, maybe 5 more or so?
3. Portals: Surely the Journalism portal could be added here, maybe a few others as well?

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. Will reevaluate after addition of an Analysis or Reception section.
2. Intro/lede section could do with a bit more info about how the organization changed its purpose over the years under different management.

5. Article stability? No issues here, stable article edit history and no issues upon inspection of talk page history.

6. Images?: 2 images, no issues here, book check out okay.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (not nominator) - A "See also" section is not part of the GA requirements (and the guidelines don't require it either). Portal boxes are likewise not a requirement, although they should probably be added (Portal:Journalism, Portal:Indonesia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Some are suggestions, above, some are requirements as part of the GA Review itself. All are just simply good ideas. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'll have to check what's available for a reception/analysis section. Romano & Seinor is the only major work I've seen so far that really goes into the perception of the agency, but it's limited to post-1998 events. Domestic sources are lacking because media was tightly controlled pre-1998. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you very much for the update! Really any secondary sources at all commenting about it would be helpful, for some perspective for future readers. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added a Public opinion section covering Antara's legacy and views on recent reforms, which should give additional positive perspective. I've not been able to find specific examples of criticism from the early years of government control beyond what is already outlined in the second and third paragraphs of the National news agency section. I identified an additional source from the 1970s that may fill this gap, but I have not been able to get past its paywall short of purchasing the article. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 12:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • WP:RX for that one. It works... for western sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh ho, this didn't exist in my time. What a great resource. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Definitely, and you've already got a reply there! (I couldn't have gotten Frank's Cock where it is without the RX) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Pass as GA quality

Good job addressing above points. Promoted. — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)