Talk:Extreme Spots/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Good Day, I am a SpongeBob fan and I have noticed that this article has the GA status. This article's review was very quick and non-thorough, as it missed many main points such as what the maintenance template currently states. The reviewer probably was a fan of SpongeBob and wanted a quick pass. I am creating this as I believe this article is not worthy of the "GA" status and should be reworked until nominated again. Anyone is welcomed to give their opinions as I list the issues. You have as long as you need Thank you. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
| 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. | Juvenile Words such as "And even" |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See maintenance tag on article, the text is relative and redundant and does not cover the entire plot. |
| 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. | None of the Lead is referenced |
|
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). | All reliable |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Certain sentences are original |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyvio |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Mixed but could use come expansion |
|
|
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. | In my opinion, this should be delisted as a GA and renominated once the issues are fixed. If I see improvement over the next few days, I will keep the GA status, but for now I do not see a GA in this. |
Other comments
[edit]AmericanAir88, before this is delisted, other steps recommended in the GAR instructions should be done, including Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer.
At a bare minimum, this should include one from each of the three WikiProject entries, whether apparently active or not. While neither nominator nor reviewer has been active lately, both most recently edited in September, and a notification there would not go amiss; as the nominator is also a major contributing editor, he or she should be notified regardless.
It is very strong Wikipedia precedent that we allow at least seven days before taking action, since people don't edit every day, but they can reasonably be expected to check once a week. So concluding this after three days would be very much out of the ordinary—the instructions do say Wait for other editors to respond.
Once you have posted your notifications to the WikiProjects and anyone else, please allow at least seven days. There is no urgent rush to delist; both GA reviews and reassessments should be deliberative processes, and the standard GA review hold is seven days. With a reassessment, we should allow at least that much time.
It would help if you could be more specific. Give examples of "original" sentences that need to be based on sourcing instead. The article might profit from requesting a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, which could deal with the tagging of the plot summary and the prose issues you have with the article as a whole. (They would not be able to deal with one of the issues, that aspects of the plot are missing, but I imagine you could supply them.)
Finally, one of the things you tag as a deficit, for 2a, is not. GAs are required to meet the manual of style's lead section requirements—see 1b—and these note that inline source citations are not typically required in the lead section, since all information in the lead should generally also be in the body of the article and sourced there. Only if a quote is used or a possibly contentious piece of information is included, should it be cited in the lead.
As it says at the end of the top section of the GAR page in number 4, Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you for telling me the correct way to do this reassessment. I sensed bias in the original review for the article which passed it in 1 day. If you looked, The article was clearly not GA material when reviewed for GAN. The reviewer seemed to be a SB fan. I apologize for the rushed review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- AmericanAir88, I was very surprised to see that you closed this reassessment four days after your post above, not seven, and without doing any of the notifications that are required by the process. That's really not appropriate.
- I am therefore reverting your closure, and reopening this reassessment effective immediately. I will take care of notifying the WikiProjects, which you did not do, and also any other appropriate people. Please wait at least until the end of the day on December 28 before closing this again, should there not be a response. (If there is, and the article is being worked on, then keep it open as long as reasonable progress is being made.) I could also wish you had addressed the other points I made, such as identifying at least a couple of original sentences that are not acceptable, and redoing your comment on 2a since it is not correct as it stands.
- Although you may well be right that the original reviewer was an SB fan, we typically assume good faith that they still reviewed as best they could—reviews sometimes take far less than a day, though this is not always a good thing—so potential bias is not something to go into. Rather, it's issues with the actual text, which might itself not be neutral, that we check for.
- If you have any questions, by all means ask. I realize this is new to you. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I apologize for the early closure. I meant seven days from first reassessment. As an apology, I will try my hardest to fix the many issues that plague the article. I acted prematurely and I promise I will fix them. AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm very late to the party (I'm not usually logged into Wikipedia much anymore) but I agree with BlueMoonset's above criticisms of this reassesment listing. I believe the OP's minor nitpicks are either confusing (I'm not sure what is redundant or repetitive about the plot section) or easily fixable and not worthy of a delisting. I also don't find the comment about "The reviewer probably was a fan of SpongeBob and wanted a quick pass" based in fact. I don't remember reviewing this article, it's been 4 years at this point, but that seems a bit silly to suggest, because like I said earlier even the OP admits that the article mostly passes the GA criteria outside of a few vague criticisms. So... I guess this comment is me saying the article shouldn't be delisted. Taylor Trescott - my talk my edits 19:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC) @Taylor Trescott: Thank you for your contribution, I was on my way to delist the article when I read your intelligent statement. I will keep the article around for a couple more days for improvements. Currently, I do not see GA potential as the length, prose, references, and tone are not(In my opinion) "good" enough to be a passing article. I admire your contribution and will continue to work on the article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC) I stumbled across this article as an article in need of a cleanup. Overall I think it is a great start with a lot of information I would not have thought to include. I think the plot summary is a little tough to read because of its flow, but that can be easily fixed. What are the other major issues that need work for this article?SneakyCactus (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)