Talk:Squatting in Albania/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Nolabob (talk · contribs) 10:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to conduct a GA review on this article. I intend to use the table template to track my review. My initial impression of this article is the scope is a possible concern. More details to come. Nolabob (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on! Mujinga (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.	This could be re-addressed at the time the article is expanded.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article in current form has but one section ("History"), not even one on current status. This limitation relates to the article's principle problem, which is narrow scope.
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.	The layout style of the citations is satisfactory.
	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).	The supporting citations are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no evidence for original research in the article as it stands.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector (in English) and found no problems. I do not believe that there is a way to run Earwig's in the Albanian language. For this reason, there is some possibility that something could be copied from the Albanian language, although this seems unlikely considering the quality of the supporting citations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The scope of this article does not do justice to this important, and humanitarian, topic. As is described in the essay Wikipedia:Out of scope, the scope of a Wikipedia article is determined by the supporting citations. Citations 1 and 3 are vital to this article. These citations have much broader scope than does this article in its current form. Examples of expanded scope suggested by the citations include (but are not limited to): Why was the decollectivism process chaotic after the fall of communism in Albania? What were the roles of local and central governments? What were the roles of NGOs and the international community? Comparisons to other former Eastern Bloc nations and the Soviet Republics themselves? What about the resourcefulness of the Albanian people?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article seems excessively focused. See criteria 3a.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The point of view of the article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article history shows that the article is stable.
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.	The images are all in the public domain from the Wikimedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	These are relevant to the article in the current form.
	7. Overall assessment.	In its current form, the article should not advance to GA status. See criteria 3a in this table above.

Reply on broadness/scope

Hiya I'm not sure if the review is finished yet but since I was checking in on the progress, perhaps I can reply on the query about scope. The criterion 3 for a GA says "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[5] and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I feel I've summarised what is useful for the article from the sources, the examples for expanded scope appear as first glance to me beyond what is needed in an article about squatting in Albania and might be better covered elsewhere. For example, "Why was the decollectivism process chaotic after the fall of communism in Albania?" might be better answered by Fall of communism in Albania. I'm happy to discuss this further and perhaps the answer is to add some links to other wikipedia pages about Albania? As a comparison, previous good articles in this area include Squatting in Thailand and Squatting in the Philippines. Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga, This is an important and humanitarian topic. Therefore, I encourage you to do further work on the article through expanded scope. There are a fair number of other Wikipedia articles on squatting (as you point out). Most of them have broader scope than this one. However, I think you also have another option: You refer to the article on Fall of communism in Albania. You could merge this article and then work on elevating the new article to GA status. That would be an important contribution. Regardless of which route you choose, I'm willing to take another look at the article. Best regards, Nolabob (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I don't really think you are following the GA review process here. In my view, you would do the review and then put the article on hold to give me up to seven days to make changes and improvements. Instead, you suggested above that the scope of the article was too narrow, then I replied on that point thinking we would discuss, now you have failed the article. I am quite surprised by that course of action.

I mentioned the Fall of communism in Albania article as a place where perhaps some of the things you were asking to be in this article would be better placed, now you have suggested I simply merge this article into that one. That idea doesn't make much sense to me at all since I am summarizing the literature on squatting in Albania throughout history, whereas the fall of communism took place between 1990 and 1992. I honestly don't think the other articles I suggested have broader scope than this one but I'm happy to take some more time to consider your suggestions before renominating. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.