Talk:Joran van der Sloot/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (T/C) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N This article appears to be fairly well-written and sourced on the surface. Unfortunately, I am not proceeding with a full GA review because this article is currently unstable. This article fails on "quick-fail" guideline #5. (5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. ... If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed (as described at Wikipedia:Good article nominations) without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues.) Aaron north (T/C) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van der Sloot is still being held for trial, Peru is currently debating whether to accept or throw out his confession, etc. He has not yet been convicted of a crime for which he will be tried soon. This article simply can not pass review until the subject's situation is more stable. Perhaps when he is convicted or aquitted, then even though there may be appeals or extradition attempts, his situation will probably be stable enough for review after trial. Aaron north (T/C) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, if the editors still want to work on improving the article in anticipation of a future GAN, I would suggest asking for a peer review. Aaron north (T/C) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly agree. It is a different situation from Natalee Holloway, which got a GA on its way to FA, because though the matter was ongoing, there was (and is) no endpoint in sight. A PR is a good idea, and as FA contains no equivalent criterion, that may be a goal. I do not think it is FA worthy at present, it is well referenced but I think it is overdetailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds perfectly reasonable. Thank you for the PR suggestion. KimChee (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post-review update It has been brought to my attention that under the laws of Peru, Joran might not go to trial for up to 18 months, which is an extraordinary amount of time by most standards. A quick check seemed to confirm this. Given that fact, my quick-fail for instability is a little difficult to sustain, and it may not be reasonable to insist that the editors wait over a year for the trial to begin, and another year or so past that for decisions and appeals before they can request a GA review. A future reviewer may decide to fail or hold it for other reasons since this article did not receive a full review yet, and the article would need to be kept up to date under the GA criteria when the case finally does proceed, but for what its worth, I no longer believe the article is unstable. Aaron north (T/C) 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]