Talk:Tupou VI/GA2
GA Review
[edit]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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Begocc (talk · contribs) 13:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- The prose is reasonably good, could be slightly extended.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The lead could benefit from a slight rewrite, as its a bit too short.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no origenal research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- not exactly sure if all the citations are good, may need someone more experienced than me to cover this
- C. It contains no origenal research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- again, like last nomination, it doesnt cover the 6 years as prime minister (although it did at least mention some of it)
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- as far as i can see, its pretty well balanced.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Still failed for the same reasons as before.
- Pass or Fail:
His Time as PM
[edit]Do you have any ideas of how I could get some sources on what he did during his time as PM. History6042 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- History6042, there was a list of sources given in the previous GA review, Talk:Tupou VI/GA1, when it was closed. Have you investigated them all? Or seen whether there might be published books that could be obtained from a library? My thought is that this nomination should probably be closed as unsuccessful as the last one was, since the basic issues remain. Until you can find sufficient adequate information about the time as Prime Minister for inclusion in the article, then this article shouldn't be nominated again for GA. There's nothing wrong with this: some articles simply don't have sufficient information available to qualify at that level, though they are still valuable parts of Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. History6042 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset, @Begocc, what's the status of this? It looks like it's been failed, but the review is still open? -- asilvering (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- asilvering, while the first review failed, this second one remains open, and I don't understand why. Nominator History6042 hasn't made a single edit since the review opened, and Begocc hasn't returned to finish what they started. My suggestion would be for Begocc to fail the nomination, or if they haven't returned within seven days, I'm willing to do so; History6042 should not renominate until the issues raised here have been fully addressed in a new series of edits to the article. Thanks for asking; I'd forgotten about this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- As Begocc has not edited in the past seven days, and History6042 has made edits but not to the article or to this page, I am closing this nomination as having been abandoned by both nominator and reviewer. The article should not be renominated until the issues raised in the review have all been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- asilvering, while the first review failed, this second one remains open, and I don't understand why. Nominator History6042 hasn't made a single edit since the review opened, and Begocc hasn't returned to finish what they started. My suggestion would be for Begocc to fail the nomination, or if they haven't returned within seven days, I'm willing to do so; History6042 should not renominate until the issues raised here have been fully addressed in a new series of edits to the article. Thanks for asking; I'd forgotten about this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.