Talk:Doug Ford/GA1

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

Reviewer: Woko Sapien (talk · contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think all the citation needed/better source needed tags should be fixed before going forward. This is especially true in the "Political positions" section. In fact, that whole section could use an overhaul. There are currently two subsections that effectively address the same thing: "Spending reductions" and "Government debt". With a little bit of effort, it could be reorganized into subsections like: Budget / Education / Energy / Regulation / Taxation (or something like that). The Toronto City Council affair could probably constitute a "Criticism and controversy" section in its own right.

Just my thoughts. Woko Sapien (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been a while and I've kind of lost track of changes to the article in the interim, but I'll go through and see what I can fix easily. Courtesy ping since he was critical of this process proceeding in the first place, I'd appreciate your input here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Right off the bat I'm going to suggest that the presence of the "political positions" section is disqualifying to GA standards. It was added since my nomination and needs to be completely rewritten. I might have time to take a crack at it in a few days but certainly not right at the moment. If the reviewer decides to fail on this basis I understand. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the "Political positions" section as being automatically disqualifying per se. After all, other good articles have similar sections (Joe Biden, Rand Paul, Stephen Harper - who actually has multiple sections on his policies). As Ford's premiership continues, it might make sense to move the section onto its own page "Political positions of Doug Ford" and leave on his main article just a hatnote with a paragraph or two on his overall ideology. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's my objection to the nomination in a nutshell: in 2015, I had Art Spiegelman made a GA; over three years later, despite a number of changes, it's still substabtially the same article. Now here's a diff of the changes Doug Ford has gone through since this July.  His term as premier has just begun; there's been a lot of drahmah in the last few months, much of which hasn't been addressed, much of which has been summed up poorly or accretionally, and more promised to come.  Articles and books will likely appear on the man in the foreseeable future, leading to substanital updates even outside of his premiership—the three very thin, short "Early ..." sections will inevitably be substantially expanded, as well as other parts of his career as they get proper summings up.  This is ignoring the inevitable POV pushing and even good-faith content disputes the article has already gone through and likely will go through again.
 * The issue I have is with content stability. Even assuming every edit made to the article from here on in were of the utmost quality and balance, the article itself will change in far too substantial ways in the foreseeable future for a GA review to take into account.  We're not talking about appending a public appearance, award, or even death to the article here and there, or mere copyedits.
 * If this article is made GA now, it will require regular GARs to ensure it has maintained that status. How frequent should they be?  Annual?  Quarterly?  Does Wikipedia really need this headache?  Please think about what that little green medallion is supposed to mean to the reader.  How likely is it that it hold for that reader with this article in 2019? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 12, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1) Well written?: Redundant or incomplete information on important topics, as I mentioned above.
 * 2) Verifiable?: More inline citations and better sources are needed
 * 3) Broad in coverage?: A lot of focus on political career, limited focus on personal biography.
 * 4) Neutral point of view?: Seems to be fairly neutral in its tone
 * 5) Stable?: Major liability as discussed above, article could very easily become subject of edit wars.
 * 6) Images?: Media is its biggest strength in my opinion
 * 7) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Should address some of the issues discussed here before being reconsidered for GA status

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Woko Sapien (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)