Talk:Local authorities swaps litigation/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Overall comment: I felt like I came away from reading the article with a good understanding of a complex topic, which is an achievement worth celebrating. But I also felt like the article could have been better in many ways. I'm dumping my notes here, in hopes that it helps make the article better. As context, I'm a practicing US attorney in a different field, with two years of Latin.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 14:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
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. | Many areas lack citations/references. Some sections lacking citations that I recorded in my notes on the review:
|
![]() |
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. | I'm concerned that there is a lot of citation to primary sources, which makes it hard to know if this is original research (especially if one doesn't have the books that are cited). So leaving this as ? for now. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Looks good on this count. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Overall, despite concerns mentioned above, does an admirable job addressing a complex topic at a useful/interesting level of coverage. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Per previous. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | With only a few (possible?) exceptions noted above. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
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. | As one would expect of a fellow attorney :) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Excellent start, but in my opinion still needs a lot of work for GA. |
Status query
[edit]LuisVilla, Legis, where does this review stand now? LuisVilla appears to have finished the review on March 13, and Legis did a series of edits to the article on March 14. Is there more for the reviewer to do (the last edit summary was not clear on that point), or for the nominator to address? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset Legis: The edits made on the 14th address many of my stylistic concerns, but not most of my concerns about sourcing. That said, this was only my third(?) GA review, so I'd also be open to getting a second opinion if either of you think that would be appropriate. The article is quite good in a lot of dimensions, so I'd hate to see my inexperience be the cause of a bad outcome. —Luis (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- LuisVilla, if your sourcing concerns haven't been addressed, Legis should either do so or explain why it isn't appropriate. You could certainly request a second opinion if Legis disagrees with your assessment on the sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset: Unfortunately Legis hasn't responded, so I don't know what he thinks of my feedback. Legis, if you're out there, let me know and we can request a second opinion or close this for now as appropriate. (To be clear, again, this is a really impressive article, and you've enriched us by writing it- just not GA :/ —Luis (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- LuisVilla, if your sourcing concerns haven't been addressed, Legis should either do so or explain why it isn't appropriate. You could certainly request a second opinion if Legis disagrees with your assessment on the sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for not replying. I have just been snowed with work. I sort of acknolwedge the sourcing concerns - I think that those are easily addressed, but it is just going to take time for me to sit down and do it, and that is not likely to happen any time soon. I think rather that keep this open indefinitely, the better course is probably to fail it as a GA. When I can I'll come back and fix the sourcing (and other) problems, and then renominate at a later date. Thanks, and sorry. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Legis: @LuisVilla: – I will be closing this review on Friday, June 9. Please let me know if you decided to work on the suggested improvements and need more time. I'm willing to chip in as an additional reviewer. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- @ComputerJA: per Legis's comment on May 2 (which I missed at the time, sorry!) I went ahead and closed. —Luis (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)