Talk:Myth of Skanderbeg/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

There are unresolved issues regarding this article. There are multiple tags at the top of the article, which have been there for over a month. The article has recently been nominated to be merged, and then nominated to be deleted, with no consensus. Before conducting a full review, I'd like to see these issues explained and/or resolved. Putting on hold for an initial seven days for the multiple issues tag to be dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talkpage I can see that the person placing the tag has given a rationale for the tags, and has engaged in discussion regarding the issue, though the rationale is disputed. GAN isn't dispute resolution - we cannot adequately or appropriately review an article over which a dispute is taking place. The dispute needs to be resolved first. As this article has been the subject of serious dispute I'd like to see the dispute resolved satisfactorily, and then a period of stability of around a month before reviewing. See Talk:Catholic Church/GA1. I am inclined to close this now, though will keep the GAN open for the full seven days to see what happens regarding the dispute resolution. If all parties agree to work together to ensure the article is balanced and neutral, then I will agree to conduct a full review, though I would keep it open for a minimum of one month to ensure stability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably close it as whenever someone points out the article's POV[1] Antid. replies by copy/pasting policy quotes and not refuting the arguments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple issues tag remains, and I see no realistic attempt to resolve matters. Is there any hope for this GAN? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carry on SilkTork. The "multiple issues" will stay for ever because the "Skanderbeg" theme is central in the national identity of a modern Balkan nation. There will always be someone "disputing the neutrality" and the likes. I'm not sure if this is a "good article" according to WP criteria, but certainly deserves a review. When I did a review of the "Skanderbeg" article, a username (now banned) attempted to stop me by repeatedly requesting (and sometimes succeeding) quick deletes of the review! --Euzen (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork. The user who placed the tags ignored my explanation provided in the tag bombing section. I propose you to follow the advice of another user (Euzen) who thinks you should continue with your GAR and explained why we can expect such tags to be unjustifiably inserted forever. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fail[edit]

As the multiple issues have not been dealt with, and the only edits since this GAN started have been a little edit war over one entry, I am closing this GAN. The article can be nominated again, though all disputes and stability issues should be resolved first. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]