Talk:Live Oak High School (Louisiana)/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by BlueMoonset in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: RogueScholar (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review edit

  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here   Undetermined

Result edit

Result Notes
  Undetermined The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion edit

@RogueScholar: Are you still planning to review this? AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not the main reviewer, but as long as I can offer additional input: Why is this article up for WP:GA nomination while it still has major issues/cleanup banners at the top of the page? Per WP:GA#Immediate_failures, that's an immediate failure of GA review..? As of 2 December 2019, the article is tagged (since June 2019) for two issues:
  1. This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. (June 2019)
  2. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2019)
In checking cleanup banner issue #2, a quick look seemed to me that the article leans on the editorialized side—the lead contains the sentence, Despite its open enrollment, the school consistently produces high test scores and National Merit Semifinalists and Finalists.
@BlueMoonset: I'm new to GA review. Is this an immediate fail? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Shrinkydinks, Aircorn, I don't know how I missed the original ping, but having taken a look at the article and the editing history of both nominator and reviewer, my inclination is to close this nomination as unsuccessful. Although it was nominated to be a GA the day before another editor placed the problem templates on it, the nominator has never dealt with them, and indeed has only edited once (in August) since the day after the nomination was made. There are verifiability issues as well, with sections being completely unsourced; the nominator is gone, the reviewer has not actually done any part of the review, and hasn't edited on Wikipedia since the end of November, and presumably hasn't even logged on or they would have seen Aircorn's ping, so I think they've had their chance. Unless Aircorn objects, I plan to close this in 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
BlueMoonset: that sounds reasonable! -Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree, with an entire unsourced section, valid cleanup banners not addressed for months, and claims in the lead not supported by body text or sources, I think this can be an easy quick fail. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
The nomination has been closed as failed/not listed. Thanks to David Eppstein and Shrinkydinks for concurring in this decision. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.