Talk:Malala Yousafzai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gwickwire (talk · contribs) 01:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	May need a small amount of inline citation to be added.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most main ideas about topic are addressed, as far as I can tell.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	One outstanding edit request on talk page, and it's a current event so may change frequently.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes, as far as I can see no major problems to prohibit it from being a GA

(Just a note to anyone who cares, I almost broke the table when I was trying to finally assess it... I didn't think that was too bad of a sign though. :) gwickwire | Leave a message 01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had hundreds of edits from multiple editors in the last few days, and based on its subject matter, will be changing more as events unfold. How can this possibly meet the "Stability" GA criterion? Other problems: many citations are improperly formatted (containing only a title and a link); some sources probably do not qualify as reliable sources (their validity should at least have been discussed here); the prose relies too heavily on quotations; prose does not appear to be neutral. Sasata (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the past, many articles have been promoted even as current events. I am in the process right now of making a list of sources to remove, and when done will remove them all in one edit. As far as I could see, the prose wasn't too far off from neutral, if you disagree I am open to your opinion. In other words, I will go and take another look. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of edits from a few editors. The article was a skeleton that we massively updated -- that's not going to continue happening. As for unfolding events, it's really only her medical treatment. That's one section of many. Gwick, you mention "removing them all in one edit". That scares me, since I wrote most of this. How does that process work? Do I get a chance to fix them before you mass delete?

As for not being neutral, could you elaborate on that Sasata? I'd love to fix it. Also, you mention unreliable sources. Could you please tag these with {Better source}? I'm very dedicated to this article and will make any improvements needed. Fortibus (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x2 If you would like, sure. I will post a list here. See, I went ahead and passed this because I feel it meets the criteria enough. I'm going to look at the links tomorrow (in about 16 hours or so), as I have some other stuff I'm doing right now. I just don't want to make a bajillion small edits to remove one bad link at a time. :) gwickwire | Leave a message 02:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Fortibus (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. I was going to do it right after I reviewed this, but.. I totally forgot it was Monday, and I had homework to do... So, like I said, I will try to get to it tomorrow, but definitally within a week at the latest. (By the way, I'm doing these short responses in between homeworks.. Wikipeida Addict much?) gwickwire | Leave a message 03:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

It looks like someone reassessed the article and demoted it, and I have to agree. Nominating this article was too premature. Current events can change rapidly. The nominator should have waited for her treatment to be finished so we'll know if she's likely to live or died, and waited for the investigations to be complete, so we know exactly what happened at the shooting incident. Current events are generally bad ideas for GA nominations, and I'm disappointed that the first reviewer did not take this into account. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, the way I interpreted it was that it couldn't be changing frequently due to edit conflicts or content wars. That, to me, doesn't prohibit current events from being Good Articles. However, I can accept the decision to demote it for the time being. I may nominate it at a later date if it stops being so current. Thanks for your feedback. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Gwick. Look at the policy. "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8]" Clicking on the reference shows this: "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

Therefore the nomination clearly should have been put on hold. Futuretrillionaire, where do you see a basis (in policy) for delisting it? Fortibus (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you say that someone "reassessed the article and demoted it" -- what are you referring to? The only thing I see is you editing the page to remove the GA status. Where can I find the other assessment? Fortibus (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the top of the talk page. Find "article milestone" and open it. I was not the one who reassessed it. I was the one who removed the GA icon after seeing the reassessment. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fortibus (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]