Talk:Bona Malwal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time. I am not sure how familiar are you with GA review but for quick fail there are specific categories which I do not think your comment indicates which one you upheld. Once an article jumps the hoop of “quick fail”, then you need to provide detailed assessment and give me chance to response or fix the article.
 * The whole process aims to improve articles that are close to GA through collaboration between the nominator and the reviewer. By failing the article without this process, you might have robbed both of us from learning from each other.
 * I have read your comments and below is why I contest some of them
 * “no detail about the goals, difficulties, or successes of his endeavors.” This not for me to do. I cannot make a statement like that if not included in the sources. Check WP:OR. also consider the availability of sources when recommending such a substantial improvement
 * “Malwal and Abel Alier continued to broadcast the news from Juba instead from Omdurman" this is not grammatically correct”, how? What is the grammatical problem here? Please explain. I might not be a native speaker but I think I know my way around forming a coherent sentence.you should also suggest solutions not only problems, see Reviewing good articles
 * "Malwal authored many books including "Sudan and South Sudan: From One to Two" in 2015, which considered as his political memoir" This is not grammatically correct. I assume it should be "is considered" but that raises the question by whom? See MOS:ALLEGED” .. again what is the grammatical problem?
 * And the policy you cited does not fit here, there are no allegations here. You may be refereing to WP:WEASEL which might apply if the topic is contentious
 * It failed being stable because “This is biography of the living person but he is very old. I expect he will die soon and then this will need to be updated.” that does not follow any policy! Actually it is against policy. It is called crystal balling
 * fails image because “No images. I expect it may be difficult to find appropriate ones but I'd like the editors to indicate that they tried”. That is not a reason to fail. Please cite policies especially if you are going to fail something/
 * "Also if you say that a person became something during a period of years it implies there is uncertainty about when they took on the role." no it does not. Saying that some worked between x and y is saying just that. That is a difference in style and is not a cause to fail articles. see Good article nominations/Instructions
 * ""he resigned in protest against the shift to Sharia law" This sentence is uncited." actually is cited!
 * FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Czarking0 you need to engage with these comments even if you do not agree with them. It is part of the process FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @FuzzyMagma Hi, I think this is an important and under appreciated topic that deserves more attention. Thank you for your authorship and your attention to my GA review. Given your response I think it would be best if other editors assume my responsibility in this review. You seem to have a good understanding of the GA process. I still believe you should follow my suggestions, but in any case you may open a new GA review and I will refrain from reviewing this article further including failing it. Czarking0 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Czarking0 Thanks and actually we don not need another reviewer unless we reached a point when we are citing conflicting policies. Then you can request a third opinion using the GA tool or go to WP:3O (as I just did).
 * Look, I requested the review and thank you for doing it. Take a look to Reviewing good articles and if you still think that this article need extensive work, then let's call it a day and I will try to fix the article and re-nominate it.
 * I fixed most of what I understood, however, as it stands, I really do not get what do I need to fix as some of your suggestions contradict policies, provide problems with no solutions, and sometimes very vague (all listed above).
 * I hope you can help me. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the third opinion request, I think the proper forum is the GA talk page, but if they tell you a 3O is appropriate, I am happy to provide one. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I came to look at this from the link at WT:GAN, and I have not thoroughly reviewed the article but I do have a couple of comments:
 * Czarking0 is correct about the two grammatical errors they pointed out that you questioned; they are fairly minor issues but they are clearly there. I see various other issues in the article of a similar kind (e.g. He again became member the national assembly between 1974 and 1978 should read ... became member the national assembly ...).
 * I also agree with Czarking0 about the strange use of the word "became" in this article. "became a member of the national assembly between 1974 and 1978" means that he started being a member at some point between those dates; I'm pretty sure the article intends to say that he "was a member of the national assembly from 1974 to 1978".
 * I do not think that Czarking0 is applying the stability criterion correctly; this is about edit warring, not about whether the article will need to be updated in the future.
 * About images: I do not think we can or should penalise an article for not including images unless the reviewer can point to existing images which are PD or freely-licensed and would improve the article.
 * I would not have immediately failed the article and I do not agree with Czarking0's comments on images or article stability, but their other criticisms do seem to be valid. For a full review there is technically no requirement to give the nominator the opportunity to fix issues, but unless it's quick fail-able the reviewer should assess of the criteria in the review – including sourcing and neutrality, which they have not yet done. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto thank you for the third opinion. You are the third reviewer to claim stability is only about edit wars. I acknowledge that I was applying that criteria too broadly. I think you also make a fair point about the images. If I had not quick failed this I would have spent more time on that. @FuzzyMagma I looked through a bunch of your GA articles and you are clearly a serious editor. I hope you feel like I am doing my best. I still think this deserves quick fail (or at least did at the time I made that decision) for the writing and coverage issues I pointed out. If you wish to take those on, then I would hope you open a new GA review and if you wish I will review and potentially pass it at the time. At the very least, I will not quick fail it without your agreement. If on the other hand, you feel like this article is best served by the attention of editors other than myself, I will not be offended. Czarking0 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Czarking0 no worries, hope the discussion was useful for you, as it was for me. I will re-nominate the article then. TC FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)