Talk:Women's International Democratic Federation/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: SusunW (talk · contribs) 14:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arotparaarms (talk · contribs) 12:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article to the best of my understanding, (unlike last time, we don't talk about that) here is what I observed. I will not be granting this article GA status until one or more replies green light me to do so'

How I will rate it

I have decided to observe how it feels to read the article, unnecessary words, useless extensions to paragraphs and other metrics, I will rate everything on a 1-10/10 scale, for a better understanding.

Does it deserve Good Article?

On a scale of 1-10, I would rate its worthiness at a solid 9/10, It has all of the info you would need on this topic (That I knew very little of before now) and more. It is not huge but a good article nonetheless, and has a neutral perspective with nothing feeling like a biased opinion.

Its flaws

This article's flaws aren't its faults, The biggest flaw I could find was its red links, though not many it still bugs me a little. I skimmed through it and found quite a few grammar mistakes, though not many (I haven't edited them out yet, will do them after the review). I also used AWB to view its code and found quite a few mistakes but code won't be the thing people will see.

I am confused and hope you can expand on what you mean. I see no actionable points that I can address.

Women's topics historically have been un- and under-represented, which often means that there are a significant number of redlinks in articles about women. Hopefully as "anchor articles" are written, like this one about common activities which united large groups of women, many of the red links will eventually become blue articles.
I am happy to address what you think are grammar mistakes if you list them.
No idea what AWB is nor how to code anything. I am a researcher and writer, not a programmer and wikitechnology is typically baffling to me. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put it shortly: Nothing to worry about, I'll fix it :D

It meets all the GA requirements so the flaws I listed were just some suggestions and not somthing that would stop it from having GA status

Just Know I have approved it and was just waiting for this, I am now going to put up the top icon and stuff,

You're a good mate, hopefully the redlinks do become articles

Cheers and good job, Arotparaarms (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arotparaarms: If you really intend to pass this please follow the steps at WP:GAN/I#R4 rather than leaving it malformed. But this review seems far too cursory to be a valid GA review - you need to specifically address how it meets each of the GA criteria rather than just say that it passes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

It deserves GA and doesn't have major flaws that stop it from being a GA status Article If you feel I made any mistakes, please reply to this review or message me on my talk page. Review Conclusion = Grant it GA status

I found grammar mistakes thorough grammarly though I disregarded any dialect differences and found code mistakes through AutoWikiBot and general reviewing, please reach out to me in the replies since this is my "first" time doing so