Talk:Raël/GA1

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

Keeping Citation issue fixed, other issues not dealbreakers. AIRcorn (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This article has been tagged for a GA Request and I am seeing some obvious deficiencies. The main one is the lack of citations. The tags need to be addressed. It also turns into WP:Proseline in "Appearances in Court" and the lead is too short and missing information. It is probably best that if someone is interested in working on this that they give it a copy-edit before I do a full review. AIRcorn (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the small amount of unsourced content can easily be removed without affecting the article much. I wonder, however, whether the article meets the GA criterion for broadness. There's hardly any information on how the Raelites live, where they proselytize, what their religious practices are, etc.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was formerly titled Claude Vorhilon, the actual name of the leader of the Raelian Movement. The subject of the article is he. Information about the movement is found in the article Raelism.talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 16:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, they are not completely separated subjects. How does Rael live then? How does he proselytize? What does he practice?
 * In addition, for a GA at least one picture is required, probably a copyrighted one can be used on the basis of fair usage.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 19:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses. I do a few of these and more often than not nobody seems interested. From experience I have found that it is best to do a superficial review to see if someone wants to address the main issues before getting into an in depth one. Any comments are welcome though. I will just add that having an image is not a requirement. If there are none available then they are not necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I do not pride myself on having a good memory—quite the opposite, actually—in this case I was right. WP:GA? says Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio. In this case, this is well possible, as I have already mentioned. Only in case of an abstract article like meaning of life images may provide a challenge, though i should say I have never seen a GA without images before.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We will have to disagree on that one. I personally will not insist on a non-free image being used in any article I review. I will also say it is not possible to use a non-free image of the individual in this case because as far as I can tell he is still alive and therefore it is possible to get a non-copyrighted one (see WP:NFC in particular point one of WP:NFC). There are exceptions and maybe one could be made in this case, but that goes outside the realms of being required as far as a Good article reassessment goes. AIRcorn (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And you are sure no free images can be found?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * reminder :) --MrClog (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I took a long sudden break and completely abandoned this review. That is unacceptable and doubly so since I am usually the one chasing up on these old reviews. I think the only fair solution is to close it as abandoned, which is what I would have done if I had come across it in this state. However, since no one has specifically said it meets the GA criteria and Farang Rak Tham has pointed out issues above there may be a cause for delisting so I will give a chance for editors to respond. Again sorry. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)