GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kavyansh.Singh . I have reviewed this page. Kpddg (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 17, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass Not Pass Main Issue - repetitve (the quote where he says 'I dont like brocolli', etc; short article
2. Verifiable?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Stable?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Ok


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.— Kpddg (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I feel like there should be a second opinion for this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No real opinion, but the fact that "short article" is cited as a reason to fail and "broad in coverage" is passed is a little fishy... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 18:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been renominated. Open for another - experienced - reviewer to take a second look --Whiteguru (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than being renominated, I have reopened this original review for a second opinion from someone fully familiar with the GA criteria and how to apply them—please take a full look at the article and do a complete new review of it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second review for reopened nomination

[edit]

Hi there! I'll be giving a second review of this nomination. Comments should be completed within a week. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 02:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

Sourcing

[edit]

Broadness

[edit]

Neutrality

[edit]

Pass-adena!

Than KyunKavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

[edit]

pass-ifier :)

Than UyênKavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

[edit]

I find it hard to believe that there's not more images, but illustration isn't a requirement and all the images are relevant. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 02:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Actually, if you could take an image from the C-SPAN video (should be public domain, no? If not, it's definitely fair use), that'd work splendidly. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 03:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this video? The copy-right status is unknown, we'll need to assume it as a non-free media. And I doubt whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

[edit]

Fantastic job, Kavyansh! There's a lot of little things to hammer out, but I think my main issue so far is that this feels a little small. There's definitely room for expansion here, and I'd want to see a bit more on specific incidents and background trends, possibly in their own paragraphs. Overall, this is going great! I'm going to put this  On hold while we work this out. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 03:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
@Theleekycauldron – Thanks for reviewing it! I have taken care of all the points, or replied above. As to the broadness criteria, as i said above, I'm not very-sure if the article is a short one, but would appreciate your feedback! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, give me few hours, I'll try to expand the article (I got something!) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron – I think I have fixed the issues, and have tried to expand the article as well. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I responded in the broadness section above, this'll take some haggling... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

All righty, Kavyansh, that's a Pass!

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Thanks! Still can't believe we have an entire article on Bush hating broccoli! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if we had asked bush in 1995 whether he'd rather eat broccoli for every meal for the rest of his life, or live under a democratic president for the rest of his life, i legitimately have no idea which one he'd pick, reading this—he hated broccoli with a passion. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 05:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]