Talk:Preuss School/GA2

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I picked this one to review because it is the longest-listed one where no review has been started.

My first comment is that the lead seems to have been treated as just another place to write about the school in general instead of being a summary of what is in the article. I spot checked 3 items and none of them were in the article. Could you review / work on the and then discuss.

After my first two reads and checking some sources I have some concerns about sourcing in general but chose one as an example to take a close look at. The is current reference #2. This is used 14 times to support some pretty specific and assertive statements about the school, just cited in general (no page numbers) to a 84 page document which seems to be on a much more general topic with not much about this school in it. Could you provide page numbers for the cites which use this reference?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I started the review on November 3 and on that date raised some questions in areas that would need work in order to pass. Did not receive any response. I pinged the nominator on November 5 to see if they had any interest in being that person and received no response. So it is now November 18th and I have not received any response from anyone. I have no alternative than to non-pass the article at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is really a quite frustrating review and one of the reasons I stepped away from Wikipedia. An article languishes in review for half a year, then once it is reviewed there is two weeks given for a response. Beyond just that, the problems that you cite as easily resolved, with the second issue being especially frustrating because the information is in the DOE release, if it had been sought out. When I have some time this weekend I'll try to revise the content of the article based on the substance of this review, but it really is frustrating. 216.15.52.187 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Can't speak for the long delay to start a review, I recently got involved to help reduce that.  I was just looking to see if there is even a live body involved here.  Waited two weeks with zero response of any kind, that seemed like a reasonable amount of time to wait.  The issues noted are just my first pass, there probably are a few others, but if you are going to be involved I'm pretty confident that they could be resolved during the review process.   I'd also be happy to help some. If you are going to be involved, may I suggest re-nominating, ping me on my talk page, and I'll start a review right away. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, being under review is not needed to make those tweaks to the article, unless you disagree with them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Result
I explained why it was non-passed in the edit summary. I normally also note it here but must have forgotten. In short, the article would need work by someone involved with it in order to pass, and there is nobody involved with it. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)