Talk:Polish–Soviet War/GA1

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

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges

 * To me, these citation needed issues strike as a serious problem. Good article criteria list them as a reasons to immediately fail a GA nomination. They certainly indicate a serious problem with GA criterion 2. (verifiability and no OR), that I can't comprehend would make anyone be "all for" a GA status. And there's not just "a few", but a considerable number of 22.


 * Also, what missing "battle pages" are you talking about? You are reviewing this article, not any other page. Having red links bears no relevance to any GA criteria (it does for FA criteria, but that's not what the nomination is about).


 * As an editor with less than 1,000 edits you are a fairly new one. While there's nothing bad about that per se, I have some doubts about whether you have thoroughly familiarized yourself with the GA criteria and instructions, and the underlining policies. GA reviews are conducted against a set of specific criteria and not an overall impression. The instructions clearly tell that having citation needed tags is a serious problem. The underlying policy, WP:V, is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and ignoring it in a process like GA reviews is a serious lapse. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Finnusertop I will admit that it has been a while since i have viewed the policies of the GA nomination, I will withdraw my comment and re-familiarize myself with them. Iazyges (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges (New)
Overall it meets most of the standards, except for 2, which qualifies it for immediate failure, so at such a time as all citations or most of them are there, it will qualify for it, but as of now it doesn't. Iazyges (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Should terms be true or false) | Policy number.Iazyges' organization numbers | Terms | Is it true or false?
 * (✓)1a.1 Clear? (✓)
 * (✓)1a.2 Concise? (✓)
 * (✓)1b.1 Correct style? (✓)
 * (✓)2a.2 Has all citations? (✗✗)
 * (✓)2b.1 In text citations from reliable sources? (✓)
 * (✗)2c.1 Contains original research? (✗)
 * (✗)2d.1 Plagiarism or copyright violation? (✗)
 * (✓)3a.1 Adresses main topic?(✓)
 * (✓)3b.1 Stays focused? (✓)
 * (✓)4a.1 Neutral? (✓)
 * (✓)5a.1 Stable? (✓)
 * (✓)6a.1 Images correctly tagged and copyright usage? (✓)
 * (✓)6b.1 Images relevant? (✓)
 * Comment. Agree with reviewer. The nominator does not seem to understand the GA requirements, and further, is not editing the article. It sadly seems like a Ï like this article, it seems long, can it be a GA?" type of a nomination by an editor who hasn't replied here despite 48h since this review was posted :(. The answer is quick fail. If the nominator wants this to be a GA, s/he needs to spend several days improving this article by adding and verifying citations, then it can be resubmitted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment
Based on the above, it is clear that the intention was to fail the article, but the final steps of the process were not taken. As this was a drive-by nomination by someone who did not consult with the regular editors as to whether the article was ready for GA status and what still needed to be done, I'm going to complete the process and register the decision with the FailedGA template on the article talk page. If the nominator wishes to renominate the article, the article's various problem templates should certainly be addressed first, and the consultation (mentioned at WP:GANI) needs to be done. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)