Talk:Liberalism/GA2

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments
Two points arise immediately before I embark on a close reading of the article. First, I see that the nominator is not a contributor to the article. The GA rules state: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. The reviewer will be making suggestions to improve the article to GA quality during the review process, therefore the review will require your involvement as nominator. Before nominating an article, ensure that you will be able to respond to these comments in a timely manner."

Has the nominator consulted regular contributors to the article, and is the nominator able to respond to any questions arising from a GA review?

Secondly, the article is written in a mishmash of English and American spellings. At present English spellings predominate but e.g. defence, favour, characterised, centre, organised labour etc are juxtaposed with emphasizes, favor, skepticism, laborers, programs, and so on. This will need to be remedied before the article can be considered for GA. (Later: I see from the article talk page that BrE is specifically adopted, and so the AmE spellings can be summarily Anglicised.)

I'll put the review on hold while the nominator considers these points. If the response is satisfactory I'll continue with the review. –  Tim riley  talk    07:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The nominator does not appear to have ever edited the article or contacted any of the regular contributors, not that there are many left. So I do not think there is any reason to wait for them.  It's not as if there is anyone else who wants to do it.  Also, you should read through the discussion for the unsuccessful featured article nomination.  TFD (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. is correct, I have not made any major edits to the article, although I'm interested in and familiar with the subject that I believe I'm about as qualified as anyone still here to take care of things. I'll take care of the alternating English spellings, and then take a look at the FAR. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that the spelling has been addressed, and at a first glance it is all now in BrE. (I'll fix any stragglers I may run across.) Turning to the substance of the article, there are far too many parts that lack citations, to the extent that it is a borderline quick fail. I can – though I'd rather not – add citation needed tags where appropriate: a temporary disfigurement of the page, but conceivably helpful in present circumstances. Let me know.  Tim riley  talk    13:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Concluding review There has been no relevant activity on the article in the week since the last comment, above. I'll give it 24 hours more and then close the review if no progress has been made.  Tim riley  talk    11:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, the work needed to bring the article to GA standard has not been done, and I see no sign that it is likely to be in the near future. I'm failing the article this time round, and hope for better in future.  Tim riley  talk    13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)