Talk:Grand Bargain (humanitarian reform)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 17:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Figureskatingfan you have provided very clear, very actionable feedback and also helped me with what is necessary for the presumed next step of FA.
 * The FA level stuff I'll do, but maybe a little later.
 * I think I've taken all the essential steps you have called for, and have not acted on the optional/FA ones just yet.
 * Please let me know if you are satisfied with those edits.
 * Most gratefully, CT55555 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for responding so quickly! Also thanks for following my suggestions; I think that the article is much improved as a result. If you ever decide to take this to FAC, let me know how I can help. Best, and keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually would love to get it to FAC, but I have another at GA that I'd like to finish first. That will become a medium term goal. CT55555 (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thanks. This is my first GA and the ease of this process has motivated me to try for more. Probably Localisation (humanitarian practice) as my next one (very closely connected to this one).
 * Do you know if the new GA articles get featured on the front page or anything like that? As you probably guessed, I like to draw attention to topics like this. CT55555 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi CT, I'm glad you had a good experience with your first GAN. Yes, it's a good idea to start out with GANs, get proficient with that, and then start submitting FACs, since they tend to be more rigorous. I'm all about filling in the content gap, so it looks like you've found yourself one, and about a very important topic. New GAs are eligible for DYK, but not this one because it was already a DYK. Continue writing and improving articles about human rights, submit them to DYK, GAN, and FAC, and that's how you'll bring attention to it. I'm here for assistance if you need it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Figureskatingfan I've tried to improve this article further, basically doing everything you said...except the changed to make the commitments more prosey. That's mainly because the agreement has 51 clauses and this is the only place where they are separated. To merge the boxes is to not inform the reader what the 51 specifics are. So I'm reluctant to do that, unless you insist. Seeking your feedback and also advice if I should submit this for featured article status? CT55555 (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @CT55555, this article, in its current condition, fulfills the criteria for GA, which is why I passed it back in June. I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to talk about its potential to be an FA, but someone can correct me later if it's not. Anyway, IMO and at this point, this article has too many lists to fulfill the criteria for FA. I don't mean that you should merge the boxes; rather, what I mean about adding more prose is to mine the sources for more content. For example, instead of simply listing the commitments, you can paraphrase each of them in "The Grand Bargain" document. Then you can fill in more information and expand each commitment even more by adding information from other sources, if they go into more detail about each commitment. Of course, these are only suggestions; it's up to you if you think you can follow them or if it's even worthwhile doing it. I hope that I'm being clear about what I mean; please let me know if I should clarify even more. Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this article for the GAN Backlog Drive. Sorry it's taken so long to be reviewed.

Prose: The main issue with the prose is that it's pretty list-y, meaning that it has too many lists and tables. Some of that is necessary, but some is not. For example, the table of the member panel under the Background heading is necessary, but the list of Focus areas under "The agreement" (which should be titled "Agreement" as per MOS:AT, which also applies to section headings) can be changed to prose. I also think that you could have added more content from the New Humanitarian ref for the "Focus areas" subsection (see below), but you don't have to in order to pass this GAN. You could also make the content within the "Commitments" chart more prose-y. For example, you could retain the chart, but change the lists in the "Commitment" column into prose.

The paragraphs are too short throughout. The easy way to fix it is to just combine the paragraphs in each section, but you'd have to make sure there were adequate transitions. You could also add more content from your references.

References: My main issue with the references is that you could've done a better job of mining them for more information and content to put into the article. I suggest that you do this if you want to improve it further, for a FAC if you choose to submit this article here. They're adequate for GA, though.

Broadness: Could be improved, but it's adequate for a GA.

Neutrality: Nice job.

Stability: Very stable.

Images: Nice choices.

It looks like in order to pass this GAN, all you need to do is make it more prose-y. If you disagree with my review, let's discuss it. This article has great potential and is about an important topic. Good luck!