Talk:Walter Tull/GA2

GA Review

Unsuccessful. asilvering (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2024 (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: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 23:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hi Govvy, I see that you haven't made very many edits to this article and that not much has changed in the article recently. Could you please reaffirm that you intend to try to bring the article up to GA standard, before I begin? It looks to me like this may be a fail, and if this was a drive-by nomination I'm less inclined to give really substantial feedback, though of course I'll still give the reasons for a fail if so. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's been a week, so here's the quick version. There are several unaddressed maintenance tags, including unsourced statements dating back to 2018 and a permanent dead link. This is in itself grounds for a quick fail. Additionally, it contains large amounts of trivia under the "memorials" and "media" headings, that is not usefully contextualized or narrativized. Some of the cited sources are not reliable. Is Walter Tull, 1888–1918, Officer, Footballer a reliable source? If so, why isn't it cited more often, since it's apparently an entire book-length biography on him? If not, why is it mentioned in the article? This is a long way from meeting the GA criteria, most evidently #1 and #2. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2024 (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.

@Asilvering: Seriously, I find this extremely unfair, I just got back from holiday and you didn't do any analyse on the article and closed it?? I strongly ask you to reopen and do a full review of what needs to be done in order to me to understand what to do to get it to GA. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: You're welcome to ask me any specific questions that you have. However, I did write a full paragraph of analysis for you. Since one of the major problems is unaddressed maintenance tags, I suspect you have not thoroughly read the criteria at WP:GA?. Please re-read that and my comments above before asking any specific questions. -- asilvering (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]