Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2009–2010/GA1
I really hate to do this, but I feel I must quick-fail this article's nomination. If you look at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review an article, you will see a description of problems with an article that can cause a GA nomination of it to be 'quick-failed'. The first, albeit minor and I would not have quick-failed on this alone, was the fact that a cleanup banner (specifically a bare url tag) still exists and is still warranted. The big problem, however, and a fundamental one at that is the problem described at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles: "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint." This is an article on an election that hasn't even finished yet; we can expect major changes over the next few days, especially at results' time. This was no time to nominate it for a GA nomination. I was thinking I would be a hard-ass for not just waiting, and keeping this nomination open, until results day. However, I think it is reasonable to assume analysis will continue for a while after results come through, and we have to consider the possibility of election controversy that might stall things yet further. In short, I don't think waiting a little while could have solved the problem. My advice is to wait at least a couple of weeks, and then renominate for GA. In the meantime, I will lay out a few other problems I discovered that are bound to be noted at this article's next nomination.
Firstly, the lead is too short. Please read WP:LEAD for info on how to improve the lead, but in a nutshell my concern is 4 lines worth of information as an introduction does not act as an appropriate summary of this election. It should be at least 3 good-length paragraphs long. Also, please read through the text of the article again, paying particular attention to out-of-date information; for example, the first paragraph of "The campaign before the official start" says that the major parties haven't picked their candidates yet. This is obviously out-of-date.
Sorry again that I have to quick-fail. I wish you the best with your work on improving the article, and best of luck if you decide to renominate in the future. Reviewer: HonouraryMix (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I nominated it early intentionally, thinking that the GA review backlog will stall our assessment sufficiently enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I should point out that the early campaign section did not actually say that - it said that they had not picked candidates in the early campaign. I've rephrased that paragraph to be a bit clearer. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)