Talk:Jordan/GA2

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

Reviewer: Emir of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope to review this article soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Comments

 * To be concise doesn't mean to remove important details like the status of Amman/inhabitance date.
 * The picture of King Abdullah has an ORTS ticket..
 * Perhaps would be willing to give a second opinion as he had reviewed the article previously. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll wait and listen to what s/he says first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given my previous review of this article and subsequent increased involvement on it, I do not want to make a final call on this GAN and thus do not want to be the official second reviewer, although I believe Emir is free to withdraw the request for a second review if they wish to. I am however happy to comment on the issues raised:
 * 1a) The first example of wording I don't see an issue with, the second I agree is clunky, but not imperfect. A better elaboration on this would be appreciated, especially given this has been copyedited by multiple people in recent months. There's of course always room for improvement, which your explanations or suggestions would help with whatever the outcome of this GAN.
 * 1b) I agree that the lead is very cluttered with cites; I noted a similar situation in my GAN. However, in the intervening time, the article has been edited such that majority of the cites in the lead already occur in the body, and could if you feel it important, simply be removed from the article with no other actions needed. I'm sure Makeandtoss would be able to look over the remaining few in a matter of minutes, and should be offered the chance to do so if this is all that holds back the article.
 * 1b/3a) Broadness is not determined by subsections, but by content. Country articles have even been promoted to FA with no subsections. At any rate, there is in this case both a Tourism subsection and a Health & Education subsection, with medical tourism and health covered, so I do not think this is a coverage issue. Anyway, if you wish, subsections can be added, although personally I would disagree with this as I feel the article has too many subsections already.
 * 6a) Clarification would be good here as to the issues identified with the image, as it has an OTRS tag. At any rate, an issue with a single image is not a reason to immediately fail the article, as editors should be given a chance to replace it, or just remove it if there's no appropriate replacement.
 * In summary, from my reading of your issues Emir, the only one that may take substantial time to solve is prose. GAN allows reviews to be put on hold for an agreed amount of time, a week by default, so if you think Makeandtoss can fix the issues within a week, I would suggest putting the GAN on hold and providing a fuller listing of your issues with the article for them to work over. If you think they could not do it in a week, or if after a week you feel the issues have not been fixed, then when failing I would also suggest adding a comprehensive explanation to base future work off. Best, CMD (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As CMD notes, it is typical—indeed expected—that if the issues raised in the initial review could reasonably be fixed in a week's time, that the article is put on hold. After that week, it is up to the reviewer, but if good progress is being made, further time is often allowed. This article does not seem, based on what's written here, to meet the conditions given in the GA criteria for an immediate failure. As the criteria page says, In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have put this article on hold as the problems are minor. Furthermore I have mentioned the image concern at Commons, and am waiting to hear their reply. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: The image is suitable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume the density of citations in the lead is now suitable ? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep it is suitable and looks much better now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Update. I have listed the article as good as I think sufficient improvements have been made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)