Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/GA1

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article shortly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is currently a Good article and has been since 3 August 2007. Its GA-worthiness was reaffirmed by a reassessment roughly two months later. However these were over 6 years ago and the case has developed significantly since then. The purpose of this review, as requested by the nominator, is to determine whether after an intensive expansion of the article the quality and content of the article continues to satisfy the Good article criteria and merit continued status as a Good Article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well-written, no evidence/indication of copyvio content, no glaring errors.
 * Per C1a:

Don't see any compliance problems with the 5 MOS guidelines.
 * Per C1b:

Article contains an appropriate reference section.
 * Per C2a:

Article appears quite adequately and comprehensively sourced, per WP:V, with appropriate inline citations.
 * Per C2b:

No evidence of any original research problems.
 * Per C2c:

Article is a comprehensive examination of the subject. No indication of any topics/issues that are lacking in its coverage.
 * Per C3a:

Article adequately balances the need for detail and the need to be a summary.
 * Per C3b:

Article's editors have made a tremendous and respectable effort to keep this article as neutral and factual as possible.
 * Per C4:

There are some concerning activity that impacts stability within the past 6 months. As this is a developing case and ongoing story, some instability is to be expected.
 * Per C5:
 * The article is currently protected due to content disputes from November 2013. Question: Do you assert that the issues leading to this protection have been largely resolved or will be resolved in the near future, do you foresee the protection being lifted?
 * In the history there are a few brief episodes of removing images and subsequent reverting to reinsert them, usually by editors who have a narrow view of non-free content policies. Given the nature of the story, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
 * Content disputes seem usually attempting to balance neutral information derived reliable sources with the insertion of tabloid-esque information, or vigilant efforts to revert the unreasonable removal of sourced, neutral material. Most of the article's stability issues are to preserve compliance per WP:V and WP:NPOV and per BLP policies, and the article's editors (especially the nominator) should be applauded for her efforts in this regard. I estimate at least 90% of the edits in the last 6 months have been to add valuable content, which is better than most dynamic BLP/current events articles.


 * Hi Colonel Henry, thank you for reviewing this and for your comments. Regarding protection, the article has been indefinitely semi-protected since November 2010 (with a brief break for full protection, then back to semi). The reason is that the McCanns have been attacked a lot on the Internet, and every so often someone arrives to imply that they were involved. I don't see that changing in the near future. The brief full protection was a similar situation. In that sense, the article will always experience periods of brief instability, especially when there's a development in the case, but it is now so comprehensively sourced that I think those periods of flux will be minimal (famous last words). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same thoughts...the media and the modus operandi of internet commentary combined with the nature of the story, some instability is to be expected as I stated above--something I understand entirely and give the "benefit of a doubt" given these circumstances. Just wanted to memorialize that response here. I'll do the image check later on tonight. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No image issues. No image issues.
 * Per C6a:
 * Per C6b:

Neglected to check off the image review. Still waiting for someone from the GA or GA WikiProject to instruct on how to close a GA review on an already-GA article (since I'm unsure if there's a technical challenge or issue).--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record I had to ask a few people about the technical issue of how to pass-close a GA nomination that is already listed as GA-status and it took a few days to get a response. I asked because the circumstances of this review were unique and (I think) unprecedented and since I wondered whether the bot used at when GANs are closed would be able to process it (the guess all around is that it probably wouldn't). I was advised to close it out by removing the GA nominee template and to add "action8=" to the articlehistory template on the talk page. I wrote action8 as a "GAR" for action8 and listed it as "kept", since that seemed to be the most accurate way to describe this review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks again for the review, ColonelHenry, and for sorting out the template issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)