Talk:Walter Tull/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JC Kotisow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 15 July 2023 (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.
	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.
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Intro

@Govvy I am pleased to say that I will be reviewing your article of Walter Tull. Looking and reading through, this article could use improvement but if done correctly, would pass GA status. I'll be sure to update with suggestions and a list of errors I have found. Contact me if you have any questions or simply want to discuss something. Cheers, JC Kotisow (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JC Kotisow: Will you be bothering to do a proper review? It's been over a month already! Govvy (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy Im sorry but I have been busy with study and work. You may need to wait for another reviewer if possible because I won't have the time to review any articles in the following weeks. JC Kotisow (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JC Kotisow, you have been actively editing as recently as today, yet you have not returned to this review since August. Either finish the review or do Govvy the courtesy of dropping it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos How do I drop it JC Kotisow (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you make a post on WT:GAN and ask if anyone is willing to take this review over because you are not going to complete it. Do you have any other reviews you've forgotten? If so, include them in the post as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos To be honest, the article has so many problems, it'd be easier to just fail it for GA but it would be unfair to the nominee. JC Kotisow (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could still fail it, but I agree that would be pretty damn unfair of you. If you wanted to quickfail it, you should have done that three months ago. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]