Talk:Call Me Karizma/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 July 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

While it is possible to write a short good article, I'm afraid that this one needs more work before it can qualify.

My two biggest worries are with the prose and with the broadness. More than quick fixes, the article is written in proseline. The way in which the article is formatted is very "on X date, Y happened", which may be in part due to that lack of broadness in coverage; there isn't much going on besides those cut and dry facts. Normally, I'd do some work of my own to point you in the right direction, but there just... isn't anything to go on. I tried the Google.

Tl;dr: it's not you, it's the subject. Maybe when he takes off, there'll be something there for a GA. For what it's worth, the subject does pass GNG. — Ghost River 22:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: From my understanding I thought that crietrion 3. means it is to be broad in coverage of the avaliable reliable sources. If no more RSs can be found than as long as its broad enough of those avaliable, with an article that meets GNG it can still meet the criteria. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]