GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: MPJ-DK ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup and GA Cup participant, I have my own GANs (
CMLL World Tag Team Championship and
CMLL World Welterweight Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (
CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (
Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.
I am aware that there is a topic ban for the nominator but I figure if I do the review perhaps other wikipedias will pick it up and get issues resolved. At least we've tried. I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while. MPJ -US 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
It is a pretty short article and while that's not a GA restriction it does mean that any issues found would be a proportionally bigger issue. If I find one error in 20 paragraphs that's just 5%, if I find one error in 5 paragraphs that's 20% so to me it really narrows the eye of the needle.
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
So as stated above a smaller article makes each issue found bigger, and I found plenty of issues in the prose itself. And besides that I am really struggling with the very existence of this article. it's not about Khorashan of Kartli, but more about what went on around her, she was a spectator to most of this, co-incidental to everything that happened, other than the dream.
Based on the GA criteria it is not well written, it is not broad in coverage of the subject. The point of a GA nomination is that it has a GA level of quality at time of nomination or at least being close to it. If these issues are addressed it would be a totally rewritten article compared to the one that was nominated. It is not the purpose of the GA review to provide these vast improvements as part of the process. So I am going to have to fail this.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— MPJ -US 13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: MPJ-DK ( talk · contribs) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup and GA Cup participant, I have my own GANs (
CMLL World Tag Team Championship and
CMLL World Welterweight Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (
CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (
Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.
I am aware that there is a topic ban for the nominator but I figure if I do the review perhaps other wikipedias will pick it up and get issues resolved. At least we've tried. I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while. MPJ -US 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
It is a pretty short article and while that's not a GA restriction it does mean that any issues found would be a proportionally bigger issue. If I find one error in 20 paragraphs that's just 5%, if I find one error in 5 paragraphs that's 20% so to me it really narrows the eye of the needle.
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
So as stated above a smaller article makes each issue found bigger, and I found plenty of issues in the prose itself. And besides that I am really struggling with the very existence of this article. it's not about Khorashan of Kartli, but more about what went on around her, she was a spectator to most of this, co-incidental to everything that happened, other than the dream.
Based on the GA criteria it is not well written, it is not broad in coverage of the subject. The point of a GA nomination is that it has a GA level of quality at time of nomination or at least being close to it. If these issues are addressed it would be a totally rewritten article compared to the one that was nominated. It is not the purpose of the GA review to provide these vast improvements as part of the process. So I am going to have to fail this.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— MPJ -US 13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)