GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this one.
Vanamonde (
Talk) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
At the moment, this has quite severe issues with neutrality. It's written a lot like a CV, and there's a lot of repetition of positive information. The article really harps on his climate change activism. It's certainly important enough to cover, but not in the manner done here. I'll go into the specifics below, but given the extent of work required, and the retirement of the nominator, I don't think there's any purpose served by prolonging the review.
"High Court of Tarawa had confirmed that there was no fraud"This is also an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice. The High Court is not a reliable source; the only thing that would justify us saying that in Wikipedia's voice is if reliable sources say the same thing.
"Tong also stood front and centerthis is puffery
If anyone watching this is interested in fixing these issues and renominating this page, they should feel free to ping me for a quick review; that way the article does not have to stay in the queue for another lengthy period of time. I am also happy to advise anyone who tries to fix it up. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll take this one.
Vanamonde (
Talk) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
At the moment, this has quite severe issues with neutrality. It's written a lot like a CV, and there's a lot of repetition of positive information. The article really harps on his climate change activism. It's certainly important enough to cover, but not in the manner done here. I'll go into the specifics below, but given the extent of work required, and the retirement of the nominator, I don't think there's any purpose served by prolonging the review.
"High Court of Tarawa had confirmed that there was no fraud"This is also an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice. The High Court is not a reliable source; the only thing that would justify us saying that in Wikipedia's voice is if reliable sources say the same thing.
"Tong also stood front and centerthis is puffery
If anyone watching this is interested in fixing these issues and renominating this page, they should feel free to ping me for a quick review; that way the article does not have to stay in the queue for another lengthy period of time. I am also happy to advise anyone who tries to fix it up. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)