Talk:Live Oak High School (Louisiana)/GA1

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

Reviewer: RogueScholar (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 September 2019 (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>

Discussion

 * Are you still planning to review this? AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not the main reviewer, but as long as I can offer additional input: Why is this article up for WP:GA nomination while it still has major issues/cleanup banners at the top of the page? Per WP:GA#Immediate_failures, that's an immediate failure of GA review..? As of 2 December 2019, the article is tagged (since June 2019) for two issues:
 * 1) This article's lead section may be too long for the length of the article. (June 2019)
 * 2) This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2019)
 * In checking cleanup banner issue #2, a quick look seemed to me that the article leans on the editorialized side—the lead contains the sentence, Despite its open enrollment, the school consistently produces high test scores and National Merit Semifinalists and Finalists.
 * I'm new to GA review. Is this an immediate fail? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Shrinkydinks, Aircorn, I don't know how I missed the original ping, but having taken a look at the article and the editing history of both nominator and reviewer, my inclination is to close this nomination as unsuccessful. Although it was nominated to be a GA the day before another editor placed the problem templates on it, the nominator has never dealt with them, and indeed has only edited once (in August) since the day after the nomination was made. There are verifiability issues as well, with sections being completely unsourced; the nominator is gone, the reviewer has not actually done any part of the review, and hasn't edited on Wikipedia since the end of November, and presumably hasn't even logged on or they would have seen Aircorn's ping, so I think they've had their chance. Unless Aircorn objects, I plan to close this in 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: that sounds reasonable! -Shrinkydinks (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, with an entire unsourced section, valid cleanup banners not addressed for months, and claims in the lead not supported by body text or sources, I think this can be an easy quick fail. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The nomination has been closed as failed/not listed. Thanks to David Eppstein and Shrinkydinks for concurring in this decision. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)