Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- 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 non-free 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
General comments
- The GA nominator has only 10% authorship, and has not edited the page in eight years. I see no evidence that the page's primary authors (editors Malik Shabazz and WhisperToMe) have been consulted on this GA nomination, which makes it a borderline drive-by nomination. Obtaining their consent, or making an effort to, would be ideal.
- There should at least be a "Summary" section; as it is, the books contents are only discussed in the last two lines of the lead, in contravention of WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD.
- The "Reception" section, which is the majority of the article, is very poorly organised. See WP:RECEPTION for how to write a better reception section, but it should be structured by theme, not by the "[Person] said "[lengthy quote]"-type paragraphs that currently constitute the section, and which mean that any discussion of wider historiographic or literary themes have been sidelined (look at the Washington Post article, for example).
- Has the television series been developed or cancelled?
- Why are the sources in "Further reading" not used?
- If GA requires integration of Further reading content, I withdraw this nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I asked why are they not used? It looks like they are all accessible, even the first which is accessible on archive.org. That one is a 300+ page collection of essays about this book, so I doubt I could certify the article as meeting GA criterion 3a) without them being discussed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- By integrated, I mean use the content from multihundred page sources online. If it is going to pass, it would be because User:Malik Shabazz and User:WhisperToMe want to work in the further expand that type of content. They are being pinged by their mention on this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the GA criteria does expect the main aspects of the subject to be addressed: I would certainly expect a 300+ page rebuttal with its own Wikipedia page to be addressed with more detail than a superficial interview quote. Just for clarification, are you saying that if Malik Shabazz (who appears to have retired) and WhisperToMe don't intend to incorporate these sources, you would prefer that this review be failed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- By integrated, I mean use the content from multihundred page sources online. If it is going to pass, it would be because User:Malik Shabazz and User:WhisperToMe want to work in the further expand that type of content. They are being pinged by their mention on this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, I asked why are they not used? It looks like they are all accessible, even the first which is accessible on archive.org. That one is a 300+ page collection of essays about this book, so I doubt I could certify the article as meeting GA criterion 3a) without them being discussed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- If GA requires integration of Further reading content, I withdraw this nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- You can shut down this review.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks
To follow once the above issues have been resolved. Putting this review on hold. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
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.