The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: User23242343 ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Grnrchst ( talk · contribs) 11:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
When I opened this review, I initially thought the article could be brought to GA through some tweaks, but the further I looked into it, the less I thought this article met the
good article criteria. As of this nomination, I think this article is still a long way from meeting the criteria and unfortunately qualifies for a
quickfail. I will attempt to demonstrate my rationale in some of the notes I collected while reading this:
"While the general courts deal with all civil and criminal cases."This sentence is currently unsourced, which is odd, considering it previous did cite sources.
In conclusion, I think this article fails to meet the GA criteria 2b and 3a. It is in desperate need of more robust sourcing and I think actually going through some better sources on the subject would end up fulfilling the issues I've found with completeness. There's very big gaps that I would expect to be filled in a good article about a Supreme Court, and there is just no way that these couldn't be through more dedicated sourcing. I would highly recommend going through more English language sources on the subject and adding them in the article; there is no shortage of these, there is just no reason not to be citing more of them and more often. Once the sourcing and completeness issues have been addressed, I would be more than happy to take another look, but I just don't think it's there right now. I wouldn't feel right passing it or even holding it in its current state. Apologies that you've waited so long for this outcome, I do hope you can continue to improve this article and get it to where I know it can be with some more time and effort. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 11:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Nominator: User23242343 ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Grnrchst ( talk · contribs) 11:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
When I opened this review, I initially thought the article could be brought to GA through some tweaks, but the further I looked into it, the less I thought this article met the
good article criteria. As of this nomination, I think this article is still a long way from meeting the criteria and unfortunately qualifies for a
quickfail. I will attempt to demonstrate my rationale in some of the notes I collected while reading this:
"While the general courts deal with all civil and criminal cases."This sentence is currently unsourced, which is odd, considering it previous did cite sources.
In conclusion, I think this article fails to meet the GA criteria 2b and 3a. It is in desperate need of more robust sourcing and I think actually going through some better sources on the subject would end up fulfilling the issues I've found with completeness. There's very big gaps that I would expect to be filled in a good article about a Supreme Court, and there is just no way that these couldn't be through more dedicated sourcing. I would highly recommend going through more English language sources on the subject and adding them in the article; there is no shortage of these, there is just no reason not to be citing more of them and more often. Once the sourcing and completeness issues have been addressed, I would be more than happy to take another look, but I just don't think it's there right now. I wouldn't feel right passing it or even holding it in its current state. Apologies that you've waited so long for this outcome, I do hope you can continue to improve this article and get it to where I know it can be with some more time and effort. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 11:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)