Talk:Flag of Prince Edward Island/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Etrius ( Us) 16:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on, giving a customary @Amitchell125: in the event they want to chime in. Right off the bat, I can see that all the changes from the last GAN were undone for some reason; revert edits made for GAN that has now been failed – start with clean slate. I don't exactly understand why this was done and the page will quick fail if I have to rehash all the same suggestions that happened in GA1. Please let me know if there is a reason that revert was done, I won't go further unless there's a good reason or the changes are restored.

Note: I just came from a cluster at WP:ANI and I'm probably going to be a bit crabbier than usual, so please be patient with me. Etrius ( Us) 04:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: as far as I can see, the majority of the changes that were undone did not pertain to the six good article criteria, as they were minor stylistic differences. I cannot see why things like using "it" rather than "the island", or adding "the" in front of "Prince Edward Islanders", would warrant a quick fail, since the six criteria "are the only aspects that should be considered when assessing whether to pass or fail an article. All other comments designed to help improve the article are to be encouraged during the review process but should not be mandated as part of the assessment" (my emphasis). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, per the quick fail policy: A reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article determines that any issues from previous GA nominations have not been adequately considered.

I agree that many of the issues were superficial, such as WP:OVERCITE concerns but the reason the article failed last time: expanding the Lead (per MOS:LEAD), has not been addressed. I'd argue that the grammatical/stylistic changes fall under 1a and 1b criteria:

The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

I also see an unreliable source that was cut (criteria 2B). User:Amitchell125 did an excellent review and I'd rather not have to rehash all the work they already put into their review. Etrius ( Us) 16:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: My comment has been here for 3 days without reply. Giving a customary ping in the event this comment was not seen. Etrius ( Us) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: thanks for that. This page was not on my watchlist (now it is). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of activity on the page, and no steps being taken to resolve the aforementioned issues, article will quick fail. User:Bloom6132 has acknowledged the comments and been actively editing during the review timeframe but no changes have yet been made to this page. Before renominating the page again, please review Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures and please resolve the concerns brought up in GA1. Etrius ( Us) 16:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.