Talk:Fan Bingbing/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zubin12 (talk · contribs) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
GA Notice
[edit]| GA Notice |
|---|
| Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Fan Bingbing in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Zubin12 (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC) |
 ·  ·  · 
|
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 29, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:Generally quite good, some areas such as those mentioned below could use some stylistic improvement but no major problems
- 2. Verifiable?: Accurate if a bit flowery, very well cited with numerous RS present for almost every claim. In text quotations are used Inappropitatley.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Very broad, covering almost all notable actions undertaken by the subject. Some details can use trimming as a lot of minute details is presented in an over-long way. The article could be made more concise
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Problematic, The language could less peacock and some of the information in the philanthropy section could be toned-down. Either way it's not a major problem
- 5. Stable?: Yes, Few edit wars or even active editing of the page.
- 6. Images?: Used well.
The article's language could take another look again to try and comply with style guides but otherwise is worthy canidate for nomination that i'm sure will pass with just a little more work
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Zubin12 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind if I chime in. @Zubin12: Are you sure you have the requisite experience to review a nomination and the requisite fluency in English to judge the article's prose? It seems a bit strange that you're failing this based on its prose while your review contains numerous grammatical and spelling errors. That makes me wonder if you're fluent enough in English to make that assessment. You don't give any examples of problematic language so your review isn't going to be of any help to the nominator. Have you had a look at the GA instructions and the guide to reviewing? I ask because it's not customary to immediately fail a nomination without giving the nominator a chance to address the issues you're raising unless the article has fundamental problems.--Carabinieri (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure I never intended to instantly fail the article more point out some anreas of improvment, This is my first attempt at reviewing as the instruction suggested that I should review an article after a nomination in order to clear up a back-log. I'll just give some problematic parts of the article here"However, as the company had yet to establish any branches in mainland China, many mainland Chinese television advertising firms had to make calls" and a more generla problem I've had reading the article. I've re-written that part of my feeback, and am sorry if iI made some error. Zubin12 (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate your willingness to help out with the backlog. I assumed that you were failing the nomination because you wrote that "This article has failed its Good article nomination". I don't really see what's wrong with the sentence you're quoting. Could you explain? What's the "more general problem" you're referring to? Unless you're specific about these issues, it's going to be impossible for the nominator to address them.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've been re-reading the requirments for a good article nomination and on reflection find the "problems" more just my own personal preference, I was unaware of options other than failing so if you can point me to a list of other options I would like to ammend my judgment.Zubin12 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to list those problems. If the article uses peacock term or if there are inappropriate quotations, that needs to be addressed.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Zubin12: Are you still planning on continuing with this review?--Carabinieri (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- sorry no, I don't think I have the time to learn how to do so at this moment.Zubin12 (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Zubin12: Are you still planning on continuing with this review?--Carabinieri (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to list those problems. If the article uses peacock term or if there are inappropriate quotations, that needs to be addressed.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've been re-reading the requirments for a good article nomination and on reflection find the "problems" more just my own personal preference, I was unaware of options other than failing so if you can point me to a list of other options I would like to ammend my judgment.Zubin12 (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate your willingness to help out with the backlog. I assumed that you were failing the nomination because you wrote that "This article has failed its Good article nomination". I don't really see what's wrong with the sentence you're quoting. Could you explain? What's the "more general problem" you're referring to? Unless you're specific about these issues, it's going to be impossible for the nominator to address them.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I didn't follow the correct procedure I never intended to instantly fail the article more point out some anreas of improvment, This is my first attempt at reviewing as the instruction suggested that I should review an article after a nomination in order to clear up a back-log. I'll just give some problematic parts of the article here"However, as the company had yet to establish any branches in mainland China, many mainland Chinese television advertising firms had to make calls" and a more generla problem I've had reading the article. I've re-written that part of my feeback, and am sorry if iI made some error. Zubin12 (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Heliosxeros: You nominated this article. Are you interested in continuing with this?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to close this nomination. This was a drive-by nomination by someone who didn't actually contribute to it and the nominator hasn't responded. @Heliosxeros: there's a considerable backlog at WP:GAN, so in the future please don't nominate articles unless you intend to actually follow up on the nomination. There are numerous unsourced statements in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)