Talk:King of the Universe/GA1

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

Reviewer: BMO4744 (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing the King of The Universe (title) article for GA status.
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * 2) The article follows the manual of style pretty well, but I do see a few grammatical errors in the background section after looking over the article.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * All of the sources seem factually valid.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a The page covers most of the topic, but I do not believe the article has been developed enough to pass this section. I was even considering not even trying this article because of the age of the article and the lack of citations in the overlook and in general. Also the fact that the article is in a start class. Looking back over the article I found a few continuity and grammatical errors in the background section. I do not believe that the article has developed to the point where the scope of the topic is fully covered. I do not know much about the topic, but I do think that the article needs more time to bake before applying for good article status. I forgot to mention the fact that only 1 user has made all of the contributions to the page. This also damages the review because their is only the scope of 1 editor for the article.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Very Neutral and nothing to contest exept that only 1 editor has contributed to the article.

Not even 500 edits or any undos.
 * 1) It is stable.


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * 2) decently illustrated but the article could need with more pictures of the kings who held the title or any original texts relating to the issue.


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I feel like it's a bit strange to fail a GA review without corresponding with the nominator? I don't think there is a lack of citations anywhere? Everything is cited and there is an extensive bibliography? It's start class because not so many people have looked at it, I don't think it deserves to be in start class. I have had many articles that I've expanded go straight from "start" to GA. I've put in everything I have been able to find on the topic and I don't think it's fair to deem the article as not fully covered when you admit that you don't know much about it? Obviously it would be good to have more input but I feel like this is a bit weird. In past GA reviews I've been involved in, the reviewer usually mentions everything they believe needs to be changed and lets the nominator address the issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have looked, and you have expanded many articles that meet the good article criteria. All of them were already existing articles with more than 1 editor making all the edits. I understand that my perspective could seem biased because of my lack of knowledge on ancient Mesopotamia, but looking at the guidelines and seeing the article. I thought that there was no way this article could pass within a reasonable time period. I must apologize because I was not very specific on the problems with the article. The heading does not have enough citations. (zero in the second paragraph), the article could really do with more illustration, and the fact that only 1 editor over the course of a month has fully developed an article worthy of GA status is continuous. Also though the article covers most of the subject. The article feels half baked when it comes to the presentation and all of the above mentioned issues. A article of this size needs more edits and editors to meet the writing criteria for a good article. I recommend linking this to people skilled on the topic to check the article and to maybe change that start status to low or mid range importance before requesting a reassessment
 * For full disclosure, I raised this issue at the GA nomination talk page as well, just to get my head around it. I'm not calling you biased; I was simply pointing out that it isn't very fair to assume the article is incomplete when you admit that you don't know the topic very well. By "heading" i assume you are referring to the lead (intro/first part) of the article? As far as I know it is standard practice to not fill that up with citations as it is simply a summary of the rest of the article; everything in there is elsewhere in the article and cited in relevant places. More illustrations is hardly a reason to fail an article? As I mentioned on the GA nomination talk page, I am sure there are improvements that could be made but I would have liked to have been corresponded with before you decided to fail the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEADREF you are not required to supply refs in the lead because the content is verified within the article. The Doctor Who  (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not offended by your actions. It is just my thoughts that this article is not ready for good article status. Also thank you for catching me on the header vs. lead and for TheDoctorWho for WP LEADREF. Illistartions is not the reason I have failed the article. I failed the article because of the red flags I saw with the article. BMO4744 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So what happens now? Are you interested in continuing the review? Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)