Talk:Tunisian revolution/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will review this article quickly. Considering a quick-fail due to the fact that the protests have a definite end, this GA would be premature. - Lord Roem (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Failing this under Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article #5 - this is a rapidly unfolding event with a definite endpoint - the protests will not last forever. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Social change is about more than just changing a leader, so it's not so obvious how "definite" an end to these protests could be expected to occur. But i'm not trying to argue against the GA-fail; my motivation here is for the article to be accurate, balanced, sourced etc. However, out of curiosity, since i didn't find any explanation of the fail criterion #5 on the GA page or related pages that you linked to, do you happen to know the motivation? It's not obvious to me why a rapidly unfolding event with an indefinite future can more easily converge to a good wikipedia article as compared to one with a definite end. Surely a rapidly unfolding event with an indefinite future should be more difficult to converge on, and be unstable. Not because of edit wars or POV disputes, but rather because of the continuing evolution of the event and different wikipedians' good faith efforts to try to keep up with an encyclopedic description. New info is continually going to shift the encyclopedic description. An event with a definite end is the opposite: it should be possible to converge once the end has been reached, assuming that sufficient RS'd info is available. Maybe just point us to the place where this is discussed - i assume that there must be some reasonable arguments behind the guideline. Boud (talk)
- Why cant it be a good article becasue its ongoing. Its pretty well and accuratly covered, i dont think it leaves a reader "wanting" and is continually added to. It can alwqys be delisted if it becomes crap in the future.
- "There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake." but there are no suggestiong here?(Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
- suggesting here: Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing_good_articles#RE:_How_to_review_an_article_.235Lihaas (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
- Social change is about more than just changing a leader, so it's not so obvious how "definite" an end to these protests could be expected to occur. But i'm not trying to argue against the GA-fail; my motivation here is for the article to be accurate, balanced, sourced etc. However, out of curiosity, since i didn't find any explanation of the fail criterion #5 on the GA page or related pages that you linked to, do you happen to know the motivation? It's not obvious to me why a rapidly unfolding event with an indefinite future can more easily converge to a good wikipedia article as compared to one with a definite end. Surely a rapidly unfolding event with an indefinite future should be more difficult to converge on, and be unstable. Not because of edit wars or POV disputes, but rather because of the continuing evolution of the event and different wikipedians' good faith efforts to try to keep up with an encyclopedic description. New info is continually going to shift the encyclopedic description. An event with a definite end is the opposite: it should be possible to converge once the end has been reached, assuming that sufficient RS'd info is available. Maybe just point us to the place where this is discussed - i assume that there must be some reasonable arguments behind the guideline. Boud (talk)