Talk:Stranger Fruit/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 08:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick Fail
Sorry but this article is a long way away from being able to be passed, as the commercial performance, track listing and personnel sections all contain unreferenced information; this means it fails criteria 2. Plus the lead needs much exp. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your quick fail assessment; as all the info is sourced elsewhere in the the article (I have since updated most of the references; although I don't know how to make the album chart tables into references.) I expanded the lead a little bit as well. A proper review without an immediate fail for minor issues would be appreciated (I believe the article is nowhere close to one of the 4 immediate fail criteria)RF23 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't just block someone from quick failing. If you read the criteria it clearly fails broadness due to the lead being too short as well as commercial performance, since it's only two sentences and I know you mentioned all the countries but you should separate the info more as this is clearly possible. I have elaborated and renominate this once it's ready, plus you made those changes after I had reviewed the article... --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the lead can be expanded a bit; but I think it summarizes the main points pretty clearly. As stated, the information was sourced; just not properly referenced (it was properly referenced a section below). I'm not trying to "block you from quick failing", I'm simply saying I disagree with your decision (my initial revert of the talk page happened before I realized you reviewed it). Is there a way to quickly re-nominated an article or to formally disagree with a review, because I nominated it almost a year ago and I feel it was unjustly thrown out without any chance of feedback (normally the nominator gets a few days to respond to article issues and fix them before it's passed/failed).RF23 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Post-close comment
Kyle Peake, RF23, I would like to suggest that, when articles have been waiting a very long time for a review, a quickfail should be avoided unless the article is clearly hopeless, which this one is not—the issues seem eminently fixable within the standard seven days. The lead was two paragraphs, pretty much the maximum number for an article with under 15K characters of prose (see MOS:LEADLENGTH), and leads have nothing to do with broadness at all (though it's perfectly valid to request additional sections of the article be covered in the lead, a normal request and usually an easy fix). In any event, leads must meet the criteria in MOS:LEAD, which a review should note and the nominator edit accordingly. Under the circumstances, I think the best thing is retain the seniority of the original nomination date while allowing a new reviewer to start a GA2 page when they select this article from the pool of over 500 nominations waiting for reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)