Talk:Public Relations Society of America/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Youreallycan (talk · contribs) 22:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Article fails GA stats - its not stable at all - diff - On reading, my primary assessment is that recent expansion appears promotional and with neutrality and undue issues . I am not going to review - I have only read the article and a few linked externals and am commenting as to my interpretation of the current article and WP:GA standard - Youreallycan 22:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks You. I was looking for some initial feedback to start. I went ahead and made some substantial trims to reduce promotionalism and try to address the undue problem. Let me know what you think. Corporate 00:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Youreallycan, per the GA criteria; Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing)....do not apply [to determine stability] - The article is stable and the changes are merely improvements which cannot be considered as an "edit war" perhaps, please re-assess your decision about reviewing. The article is "ok" in my view and needs some tweaks but it is nowhere near a failure unless the nominator doesn't address any issues. I'd disagree if you fail it without reviewing it. And about neutrality, can you provide the text in the review so that the editors get the clear image of what they have to neutralize? I appreciate you taking this review. Do ping me if you ever need any second opinion or review from me about this. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now there is an edit-war ;-)
- Someone want to give a third-opinion? Corporate 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I was pinged on my talkpage - after my comment regarding NPOV Corporote minion made some edits that addressed my concerns in that regard - thanks for that CorpMinion - As for the all his edits are to improve the article" - yes ...however imo its better to edit an article and then wait a bit for agreement or objections -- Youreallycan 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't expecting such a prompt review - maybe it would be best to come back in a couple weeks or so. You, if you care to, I'm also working on the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, which has been settled for a while now and is a very short article. I was actually working on that one first as a shorter (easier) article to bring up to GA. Corporate 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I was pinged on my talkpage - after my comment regarding NPOV Corporote minion made some edits that addressed my concerns in that regard - thanks for that CorpMinion - As for the all his edits are to improve the article" - yes ...however imo its better to edit an article and then wait a bit for agreement or objections -- Youreallycan 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Youreallycan, per the GA criteria; Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing)....do not apply [to determine stability] - The article is stable and the changes are merely improvements which cannot be considered as an "edit war" perhaps, please re-assess your decision about reviewing. The article is "ok" in my view and needs some tweaks but it is nowhere near a failure unless the nominator doesn't address any issues. I'd disagree if you fail it without reviewing it. And about neutrality, can you provide the text in the review so that the editors get the clear image of what they have to neutralize? I appreciate you taking this review. Do ping me if you ever need any second opinion or review from me about this. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 01:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Will the review be done soon? Wizardman 13:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)