Talk:Whole Health Action Management/GA1

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lede contains more information than the whole of the article, when it is supposed to be a summary of things already cited in the body. The use of lists here also runs afoul of the MOS on list incorporation: articles may contain lists, but they are expected to be mainly prose. The list here takes up more space in the body paragraph than the prose does.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * The content I removed here was a direct copy-paste that did use quotation marks, but the content before the quotes was also taken from the source and presented as Wikipedia's original content. The content has since been revision deleted
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The content currently reads like a blurb I would find on a company website. One way to make it meet this criteria would be to spell out in prose the content currently contained in the list portion of the article. While it is technically over the DYK stub guideline of 1500 prose characters now, the article very much feels like a stub to me, probably because most of the information is contained in the lede. If it is possible to rewrite the article to have all the content contained in the lede paragraph expanded in more detail in the body, you would be a lot closer to meeting the critera.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unfortunately, I think the issues presented are enough for failing the nomination after initial review. The copyvio was removed and rev del'd, and because I feel the article as it stands is far off from meeting 1B and 3A to the point where it qualifies under the first quick fail at Good article criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Making a note that after the review it was pointed out that the copied material was from a public domain source that wasn't apparent at the time of the review. It has since been restored. This does not impact the rest of the review, but thought it worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unfortunately, I think the issues presented are enough for failing the nomination after initial review. The copyvio was removed and rev del'd, and because I feel the article as it stands is far off from meeting 1B and 3A to the point where it qualifies under the first quick fail at Good article criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Making a note that after the review it was pointed out that the copied material was from a public domain source that wasn't apparent at the time of the review. It has since been restored. This does not impact the rest of the review, but thought it worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think the issues presented are enough for failing the nomination after initial review. The copyvio was removed and rev del'd, and because I feel the article as it stands is far off from meeting 1B and 3A to the point where it qualifies under the first quick fail at Good article criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Making a note that after the review it was pointed out that the copied material was from a public domain source that wasn't apparent at the time of the review. It has since been restored. This does not impact the rest of the review, but thought it worth noting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)