Talk:One Woman's War: Da (Mother)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Poltair (talk · contribs) 07:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a start-class article that needs more work to meet the Good Article criteria. There seem to be a number of sources out there, along with an in-depth critique, that might be fruitful in improving this article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There is so little content here that it is difficult to form a judgement as to whether the article is well written.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article lacks content, and much of what there is has been sourced from the primary text itself without page references.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article does not address the topic sufficiently for the reader learn much more than of the book's existence. Much of the information that is given is repeated in other sections without expansion. There is no discussion of the critical reviews, nor the reasons as to why the book is notable.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Insufficient content to judge.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No evidence of edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The one image is relevant, captioned, tagged and a valid fair use rationale is provided.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article does not meet the GA criteria at this time.

Lead

 * "... detailing her experiences during the Iran–Iraq War as dictated to Seyedeh Azam Hosseini (no relation)." – This source, cited elsewhere in the article and mentioned on the talk page, says the author is the subject's brother.

Publication
We learn that the book was published and has been translated.

The narrator
We learn a little about the narrator, but this is what the book is about.

Narrative
This section describes how the book is split into three parts, but otherwise contains little more than in the narrator section above.

Awards
This is just a repeat of the two sentences in the lead. We don't learn any more about the award, how prestigious it was, how it was received, or how lucrative it was.

Reception
We learn that the book has received some reviews, even an in-depth critique, but we don't find out anything about what those reviews said, or whether they were positive, critical or ambivalent.

TV program adaptation
We learn that a TV adaptation was broadcast. And?

A review on a content-based review
Dear Poltair. Thanks for reviewing the article. To be honest, I found your review unfair due the following reasons:
 * reasonably well written:
 * There's absolutely no restriction or criteria on the size of an article in order to be a 'Good' one. In other words, Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic. Size is not a good article criterion. By the way, there's enough content for judging whether it is well written or not.


 * factually accurate:
 * You've again mentioned the size (which is discussed above) and said that much of the article is referred to the book it self. Please provide the citation and the texts from the main book!


 * 1) broad in its coverage:
 * Please tell me what aspects of the subject is not covered according to the available reliable sources?


 * neutral point of view:
 * Again Content and size! I think that wp:NPOV has nothing to do with the size. Do you find any parts pushing a POV? If yes, what are them and why do you think they are POV? This way editors can fix the POV problem, if there's any.

Just meant to know why and there's no need to review the article once again. Btw, I found "What the Good article criteria are not" informative and interesting. Mhhossein (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made a judgement according to the Good article criteria. If you think there has been a mistake, you are free to ask for a community reassessment or nominate the article for a second review. You might even consider listing the article at Peer review to solicit other opinions on the article. My advice is to accept that the article is not yet good enough, and try to improve it, using the comments I made in the review as a starting point. Take a look at some articles that have been accepted as Good_articles to get an idea of the standard required. Best wishes. Poltair (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)