Talk:Pirate Party of Canada/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bobnorwal (talk · contribs) 03:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have decided to review this article for Good Article status. Unfortunately, I see a number of major problems right off the bat:

The lead is too short and does not properly summarize the rest of the article.
There are some problems with the article's prose, which reads too much like a series of dates and doesn't really flow.
A big chunk of the references are just bare URLs, which is definitely not allowable for a GA.
And, most importantly, far too many of those refs are first-party references connected with the topic. Worse, many of them are to the party's wiki.

I promise to take a closer look at this article tomorrow, but for now I think there's enough to start things rolling. If you have any questions at all, please fire away. Bobnorwal (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that a majority of the edits in the past month have been from party members, which adds COI to the list of issues. 117Avenue (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I can see that User:Wilson (cc), the nominator of this article, acknowledges party affiliation on his or her talk page. The other major contributor recently, Gladtidingsaregiven, does not give any indication one way or the other. Of course, conflict of interest does not instantly condemn the article - but it makes things more difficult, doesn't it? The article seems, from a general glance, to be fairly neutral in its point of view, but I'll have to take a closer look. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As you can see, I believe this article has the most problems in sections 1 and 2 of the good article criteria - which may very well be the most important. In any case, I feel this article is going to need a lot of improvement in order to reach GA status, so I think I'm justified in failing it. I wish you the best with this article, and I am open to any comments, questions, or criticism from anyone. I especially welcome input from other editors not connected to this article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Like I said above, it is very choppy and reads more like a chronology than a cohesive article. And it is not always clear what is meant. What, for example, does "handful of Canadian supporters" mean? What's a handful and what do they support, exactly?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead is too short and doesn't summarize the whole article, but the general structure of the article is decent. I don't see any major style issues.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The bare link refs need to be properly formatted.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
And, as it is, this is article relies way too heavily on first-party sources. This is definitely not acceptable for a GA.

C. No original research:
It seems to stick close to the sources and not veer off.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Yes, this article seems to cover the major aspects of a what is a fairly new, fairly single-issue political party.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Considering the COI issues mentioned above, this article seems to be mostly sober in tone, with only one sentence of praise from a notable advocacy group, OpenMedia.ca. Including a more negative comment from the Green Party also shows neutral point of view.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Yes.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I don't know too much about licensing, but both images in this article seem to be properly handled.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
It couldn't hurt to have more, but I think you hit the two basics: the party's logo and the party's current leader.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Bobnorwal (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List[edit]

-Add info to links
-Find and use non-party sources
-Improve the prose of the article
-Expand intro
-Possibly more images

--Wilson (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]