Talk:Lumi and Pyry
 | Lumi and Pyry was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 31, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lumi and Pyry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: NotAGenious (talk · contribs) 20:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Luiysia (talk · contribs) 19:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi NotAGenious - please address the issues in this review so I can pass this as GA, otherwise I will mark this as failed. Since these are fairly minor issues I would like to see it promoted Luiysia (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Well-written: The article had some copy editing problems, which I went ahead and fixed.
Issue: In the introduction, the sentences "In 2018 there were approximately 2 020 pandas in the wild and about 400 in zoo conditions. Through China's panda diplomacy program, Chinese pandas are on loan in multiple European countries in addition to Finland, including Belgium, Netherlands, Austria and France." are not directly relevant, should be moved to the background section. The panda diplomacy project is worth mentioning but the specific details aren't needed in the lead.
Otherwise, prose is clear and easy to read. Just please address this issue
Verifiable with no original research: All claims are well sourced. Pass
Broad in its coverage: Since the pandas had to be returned, I would appreciate more coverage on the "widespread criticism" that led to this. Additionally, since the end of 2024 has come and gone, if there was news coverage about the return, it should be added. Will pass if this is expanded on.
Neutral: Neutrally written, pass
Stable: No history of edit warring, pass
Illustrated: Article is illustrated, pass
Holding this article until response
- Unfortunately the nominating editor has not responded to this review. Failing this review, if desired you can resubmit. Luiysia (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)