| Revision as of 02:37, 21 April 2019 editFluffy89502 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,907 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:31, 28 April 2019 edit undoPostdlf (talk | contribs)Administrators91,177 edits →sry | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| This review shows serious misunderstandings of policy and is disturbing. I would be tempted to just put it back in the queue and get another reviewer. --''']]]''' 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC) | This review shows serious misunderstandings of policy and is disturbing. I would be tempted to just put it back in the queue and get another reviewer. --''']]]''' 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ping| Fluffy89502}} lead sections do not require citation unless there are direct quotations or information not present in the body of the article. I could name a handful of Featured Articles off the top of my head that lack citations in the lead, and yet FAs are held to more stringent standards than GAs.<p>As for citing Google Maps, again, I could name a handful of FAs off the top of my head that use it as a source, and yet FAs are held to more stringent standards than GAs. In short, please re-examine your review. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 01:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC) | :{{ping| Fluffy89502}} lead sections do not require citation unless there are direct quotations or information not present in the body of the article. I could name a handful of Featured Articles off the top of my head that lack citations in the lead, and yet FAs are held to more stringent standards than GAs.<p>As for citing Google Maps, again, I could name a handful of FAs off the top of my head that use it as a source, and yet FAs are held to more stringent standards than GAs. In short, please re-examine your review. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 01:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{Ping|Fluffy89502}} What is the status of this review? Please complete the instructions outlined in Step 4 at ]. ''']]''' 00:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == sry == | |||
| im so sorry this is what happens when you try do this while stoned ] (]) 01:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm really thinking Fluffy89502 just needs to be indef blocked (yes, was their response above). Just read through their talk page...whether they are just incompetent or intentionally disruptive, I don't think it matters. ''']''' ('']'') 16:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:31, 28 April 2019
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
"Good article" nomination hold
- @Fluffy89502: Please follow GA review procedures, as you have somehow managed to review this without getting the bot to trigger an automated notice (in the future, use the "start review" button on WP:GAN or the talk page). A quick-fail should not be done without good reason, especially for an article of this length. As for your points: WP:LEADCITE states that citations do not need to be present in the lead, as it is solely there to repeat cited information from the body; and Google Maps (mostly through its satellite imagery) is considered a reliable source for basic location information, including city boundaries, nearby locales, and terrain. It is used by WP:USRD for many featured articles, which involves a more rigorous peer review than anything done at GAN. Again, please check before jumping the gun. SounderBruce 00:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Some of the information in the lead section seem to be unreferenced.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- Lead section lacks references.
- 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:
- 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:
- 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 fair 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
This review shows serious misunderstandings of policy and is disturbing. I would be tempted to just put it back in the queue and get another reviewer. --Rschen7754 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fluffy89502: lead sections do not require citation unless there are direct quotations or information not present in the body of the article. I could name a handful of Featured Articles off the top of my head that lack citations in the lead, and yet FAs are held to more stringent standards than GAs.
As for citing Google Maps, again, I could name a handful of FAs off the top of my head that use it as a source, and yet FAs are held to more stringent standards than GAs. In short, please re-examine your review. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Fluffy89502: What is the status of this review? Please complete the instructions outlined in Step 4 at WP:GAREVIEW. SounderBruce 00:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
sry
im so sorry this is what happens when you try do this while stoned bequeef (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm really thinking Fluffy89502 just needs to be indef blocked (yes, this was their response above). Just read through their talk page...whether they are just incompetent or intentionally disruptive, I don't think it matters. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)