Talk:NAFO (group)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DocZach (talk · contribs) 04:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

It is quite obvious that this article is in major dispute among editors, especially considering that it has extended protection and numerous edit wars in its history. The article itself seems to be a bit all over the place, and the organization of it makes it very hard to read. I recommend finding more consensus among editors, and rewording the article to sound more neutral and unbiased. I also recommend either cutting down the size of the article, or organizing it into more sections - because right now, it is sort of a pain to read. I hope this advice can help. For now, I don't believe this article meets the criterion to be a good article. It still looks like a work-in-progress. - DocZach (talk) 6 February 2024 (EST)

This review has been closed, but I want to note for posterity some concerns I have that this review did not engage fully with the GA criteria or review guidance. I would support efforts by the nominator to seek a second opinion or renominate the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review DocZach! I appreciate the suggestions and will try to address them if I can but for the WP:NPOV and other prose issues, it would help if you have more specific suggestions (e.g. what specific sentences/paragraphs should I change? is there a particular topic in the article that is WP:UNDUE? how should the article be reorganized?). I think I agree with Firefangledfeathers' concerns about the depth of this review and will seek a second opinion on whether this article should be renominated as-is or needs more work before a new GAN. In any case, feel free to ping me with any questions/comments/concerns. Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DocZach and Firefangledfeathers: Just to give everyone the heads up, I started a request for a third opinion here. This is my first time using 3O so feel free to let me know if there's anything else I should do. Thanks, Dan the Animator 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dantheanimator. I'm a 3O volunteer and I think it's a great place to seek out resolution of content disputes. For something like this, where experience with the GA process is a must, I think you would have better luck posting at WT:GA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're right, thanks for that! I'll withdraw the 3O and add a section on WT:GA. Thanks again for all your help with this! :) Dan the Animator 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Started a section at WT:GA here. Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Dan the Animator 22:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]