Talk:William M. Branham/GA1

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

Reviewer: DrStrauss (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 26, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Fail - while a substantial amount of the content is well-written, there's a unnecessarily lengthy quote in the lead.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - extremely thorough.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Stable?: Pass
 * 6. Images?: Fail - a portrait of the subject in the main infobox would be good.

Add an image to the infobox, re-word some bits of it to remove the need for large quotes and renominate - it'll probably pass then.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Dr Strauss   talk  15:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversing failure by novice reviewer
One of the reasons for failing this nomination is incorrect: as it says in the GA criteria regarding images: Illustrated, if possible, by images. While a reviewer can certainly request an image if any are available and licensed, if none are available, the article still meets the GA criteria. The other objection, to the lengthy blockquote in the lead, is certainly valid, but as quotes can very easily be moved (and it has been since the review was posted), it's certainly not appropriate to fail a nomination that could (and should) be put on hold for a week while the issues are addressed. In any event, this was not a complete review, having been done in well under ten minutes; as the reviewer noted on his or her talk page, I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp.

The article does have issues that will need to be addressed. The primary one is that it doesn't meet the manual of style lead guidelines: in particular, given the size of the article, this should be two or three paragraphs long, and need to cover a bit more from the various sections of the body of the article. Also, though I don't believe this is required by the criteria, quotes should be in roman font, not italic, both inline and as blockquotes.

The article still needs to be given a thorough review by a knowledgeable reviewer; it may turn out to be best to put it back into the reviewing pool. If someone wants to take over the reviewer, however, they are welcome to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this passes the good article review it certainly isn't stable for one thing! and still has neutrality issues. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)