GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk)
14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This article's Good Article nomination 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 October 3, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:
#NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of GA Review recommendations, and not interspersed throughout, thanks
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt ( talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the page is not GA at this time. The lede intro sect still doesn't meet WP:LEAD standards, and there's still the at least eight (8) uses of heavy blockquoting and way too much quotations throughout the article itself. Doesn't meet WP:BIAS, as the Women sect is still much shorter than that for Men. Conclusion: There's been some good improvements, but still needs a lot of work. Please consider a Peer Review before renominating again for GA, and at the peer review try to ask for input by posting neutrally worded notices on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Good luck, it's a topic of value for the encyclopedia, for sure, — Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk)
14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This article's Good Article nomination 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 October 3, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:
#NOTE: Please respond, below this entire set of GA Review recommendations, and not interspersed throughout, thanks
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt ( talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the page is not GA at this time. The lede intro sect still doesn't meet WP:LEAD standards, and there's still the at least eight (8) uses of heavy blockquoting and way too much quotations throughout the article itself. Doesn't meet WP:BIAS, as the Women sect is still much shorter than that for Men. Conclusion: There's been some good improvements, but still needs a lot of work. Please consider a Peer Review before renominating again for GA, and at the peer review try to ask for input by posting neutrally worded notices on talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Good luck, it's a topic of value for the encyclopedia, for sure, — Cirt ( talk) 01:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)