Talk:A Christmas Carol/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have to quickfail this review on the grounds of stability. I see an immediate problem with edit warring / reverts (eg: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].) The related discussion at Talk:A Christmas Carol#Scrooge McDuck? doesn't give me confidence that the major players on the article have agreed which direction to go in. I appreciate you've done quite a bit of copyediting, but that's only one of the areas that a GA requires. Ideally you should have all the book sources already used, and more, and use them extensively to rewrite as much of the article as necessary. In addition, the lead is too long (an article for about 25K of prose should have about three paragraphs) and the "Background" section is quite fallow, giving us little information about why the novel was written. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- The novel was written because Dickens needed money. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- The lede can be trimmed, but the article does not need to be rewritten. Please remember, a Good Article is only a decent article, not a Featured Article where standards are higher. This article more than meets the GA criteria. As soon as the "edit warring" (read "vandlism") ceases the article will be back at GA. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)