Talk:R2-45/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've an interest in NRM-themed articles on Wikipedia, so I'll have a crack at reviewing this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a lot of good work has gone here. However, I'm not convinced that it quite meets GA criteria for a number of reasons.

The article doesn't quite meet "1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections". The lede is there to summarise the content of the article, and at present it doesn't quite do that. Rather, it includes referenced quotations which do not actually appear elsewhere in the article, and doesn't then offer a summary of the other sections of the article body. This would need rectification if the article is to be promoted to GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, a lot of the sourcing here isn't in keeping with what Wikipedia requires. Whereas an academic study of a subject can use and cite primary sources (original lectures, a promotional video etc), Wikipedia can't. Wikipedia has to rely largely on secondary and tertiary sources]. So, if we have an academic publication saying "In a 1961 lecture, he said" then we can cite that academic, secondary source. What we can't really do is cite an (unpublished) original source, but that's what is going on a lot here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some time for the nominator to respond, but if these issues cannot be resolved then I'm afraid that this will have to be a fail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the extant article has been reviewed and reviewed and reviewed, argued by one or perhaps two editors, and found to be reasonable and encyclopedic enough for all other editors -- and dozens have passed through and commented over the years.

The current version of the article is the best so far, so I don't see the need for yet another formal review unless an editor can find something that's actually wrong, undue weight, some other guideline that the article exceeds the bounds on. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week and I haven't had a response from the original nominator. No changes have been made to the article to deal with the areas in which it fails to meet the GA criteria. For that reason I am going to fail it at this time, but that shouldn't negate the good work that has gone into it thus far. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]