GA Review (Failed) edit
- Note: This GA Review is also located in the talk page archives, here, and there are some additional comments from the GA Reviewer here.
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This article falls shy of good article standards, in my opinion. It is a good example of a B-Class article, but still needs some work to bring it up to good article quality, particularly in tone and presentation.
1. Well-written. This article is bloated, or simply too long. The lede is a good example of what is wrong with the writing in this article, as it does not adhere to WP:LEAD. The last sentance of the first paragraph seems out of place in the lede and should be incorporated into the main article. The second and third paragraphs should be mercilessly edited down to a couple sentances, with most of that information in the appropriate article sections. The closing paragraph is written from a POV favouring the subject. The lede also makes no mention of the criticisms he has faced. Also, besides overall length and bloat in the article, the criticisms section should also be written more coherently, instead of being broken down into several sections for individual criticisms.
2. Factually accurate/verifiable. Yes, though see NPOV section below. Also, there is a high level of sources for the article, many of which overlap in information and POV. Cutting out redundant sources would be a good place to start in paring down both the size of the references list and the size of the article itself.
3. Broad in its coverage. See NPOV section below. This article definately needs a more balanced focus.
4. Neutral point of view. More neutral presentation in the article and in some instances sources with better neutrality would be preferrable. From an outside view, this article spends a lot of time on fawning over the subject and his POV. The criticisms section is well-cited, but poorly written. I receive the impression the criticism section was simply tacked on to appease complaints, without balancing the tone and sources for the rest of the article. Also, for such a controversial figure, the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off. This is particularly noticed in how the criticism section is very neutral in tone, while much of the article is written from a very positive POV. What is particularly disturbing to me in regards to NPOV is the occasional use of antagonistic sources to support pro and simple fact claims. This seems dishonest to me, to say the least. An editor can state "anti" sources are included to support a claim of NPOV, but this is a dishonest presentation of the use of those sources. By failing to use sources in their proper context, a casual reader is easily mislead. This not only applies to purely oppositional sources, as negative information from other sources used is also notably absent from the article.
5. Stable. I cannot endorse this as a stable article. It is not the merge issue others have brought up. GA standards specifically exclude merges. It is simply that looking through the history diffs and talk pages, there is still an amount of disagreement about the article. While this is to be expected with controversial figures, an article that meets general consensus is necessary. I get the impression this is not the case for this article.
6. Images. Good use of images. The article is solid in this respect.
Fail. This article does not meet GA standards. Issues still remain pointed out from two previous peer reviews, such as the poor lede. The strongly positive POV evident in much of the article needs to be corrected. The cherry-picking of information from sources used is at least in poor taste. The article needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing. More effort needs to be put into building consensus and stability. This article has a lot of potential, but also needs a lot of work. Vassyana 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.