Talk:Track and field/GA2
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 05:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
Most sections consist at least one source, most of them are verifiable, it looks not very bad.
Style[edit]
Well-written, details are pretty nice and clear.
Images, Netural, etc.[edit]
No obvious edit wars recently, as only one reverted revision in past 1 week; most images are clear and hugely about the topic; fair and not confusing, less mistakes.
Comment on review[edit]
This is a level-4 vital article, important, long, and quite involved. It has been waiting since May 2015 for a reviewer, and the first one, who showed up in December, was a sockmaster. As such, it needs a reviewer who understands GA and the criteria, and can apply them well. Unfortunately, that is not the case here, as it was not the case last time.
The review above, such as it is, is clearly not adequate. Phrases like "it looks not very bad" demonstrate that the reviewer does not understand the GA criteria and how it should be applied, and a simple check through the article shows a number of sections that are unsourced (and some paragraphs as well), and that some work is needed for the Well-written criteria to be achieved: I saw a section that ended without a final period, there is material in the lead section that isn't in the body of the article and that section has too many paragraphs, there are places where the layout squeezes text between two images, at least one image doesn't have a caption and there hasn't been a check as to whether they are all properly licensed, and there's no sign of other standard checks such as copyright/close paraphrasing ones. (There's only one that might be the latter, and I'm pretty sure it's the other site copying Wikipedia, for all that it must be years ago and the other site asserts a copyright at the bottom of the web page.)
As such, I am placing the nomination back in the reviewing pool; the fact that the reviewer thought the article was a GA now, rather than that it could become a GA with some work (which would take place over the course of a review, as the nominator fixed the issues that were noted), means that it clearly won't be possible for this review to uncover the places where the article needs further editing to bring it to GA status. It's a very impressive article as it stands, but it needs someone with experience to fully assess it and point out the places where improvements should be made. I hope it finds someone who meets those criteria soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)