Talk:John Millner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeJohn Millner was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 27, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
August 9, 2013Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:John J. Millner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this nomination. I should be able to begin my review with initial thoughts tomorrow today. PrairieKid (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I waited. I have been busy the last two or three days and completely forgot about this review. I'll start now. PrairieKid (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Thoughts[edit]

  • WOW! That's short...
  • Where is a biography section? The date and place of his birth?
  • Could use a ce
  • Good citations
  • Needs more detail on house and senate time

Rubric[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article does not yet meet the criteria... With some hesitance, I am putting it on hold.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Some grammar and spelling errors. It is readable but not perfect. Once more is added, more sections also need to come about.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I could only check on the few that were linked, but those were good.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article ignored a lot of Millner's personal life and didn't go into his career much, which is disappointing.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing this article on hold for one week, for changes to be made...

Overall[edit]

OK- The necessary changes are:

  • Better grammar and spelling
  • MORE! MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE!
  • Basic information

Good things to add (not required by any means are):

  • Images

A reminder- once more is put into the article, the intro should also be expanded.

In all honesty, I think this is one of those articles that simply does not have the potential to become a GA. I don't want to be pessimistic and I certainly came in hopeful. A lot of work needs to be done. I'll be back on June 26th to check in again, if not sooner. PrairieKid (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I apologize for not responding in a timely fashion, since I've been busy over the past week. I'll try to address your concerns shortly, but I understand if you must fail the nomination to meet your timeline. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. You're fine. I was beginning to get worried. I will give you a few extra days to meet the deadline. Thanks! PrairieKid (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot find additional sources to expand the article. However, I can continue to copyedit my text. Would that be sufficient? Edge3 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pass the article as is, even with the ce. I'm sorry. Some articles simply can not become GAs. I am going to have to fail this article. PrairieKid (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]