Talk:Plan S/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The nominator created the article in 2018 and, after it was nominated, changed their user name, so (despite the mismatch between nominator name in the GA nomination list and the article history) this is not a drive-by nomination. The article is written from the point of view of 2018 or 2019, asserting that certain things are expected to happen by 2021. It is late 2021. The article badly needs updating to reflect the current status of this initiative, not its status at its initiation, and to distinguish its initial state from its later revisions (WP:GACR #3a, at least). Large portions of this article are numbered or bulleted lists, presumably directly copied from primary sources in that form, rather than digested into prose (WP:USEPROSE, WP:GACR #1b). Although there are many footnotes, roughly half of them are statements of support or participation from some organization, sourced to that organization. Far too many of the sources are primary (WP:GACR #2b). The "Principles" section is mostly unsourced and its single primary source fails to verify its content (indeed, fails to verify the existence of "Coalition S", as it now instead describes something called "Science Europe"); the "Mandatory criteria" section is entirely unsourced (WP:GACR #3c). The bare-bones list of supporting organizations, with opposing statements not similarly grouped in an easy-to-find way and scattered among haphazard quotes with varying intents in the "various reactions", creates the impression that this article is intended to rally support for the initiative by showing how widely it has been supported, rather than to cover it in neutral terms (WP:GACR #4). There is one image, which appears properly licensed, but I am unable to determine whether the workflow it describes has been reliably published, is an official publication of the initiative, or is possibly a personal opinion of its author, a German librarian; in any case it serves no purpose as an illustration to the article, as it is purely text and unreadable without going to another page to read it, much like any other reference or external link; a screenshot of the initiative's web site would be equally useful or useless (WP:GACR #6b). I conclude that this is very far from meeting many GA criteria, and therefore should be an immediate failure under WP:GAFAIL #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)