Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe this is not suitable for GA as its in a list format. There are even comments om the talk page in connection with a featured list nomination. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was the one actually favouring the list style and FL of this article, but had doubts if it could really be considered as a list since it doesn't merely list the conflicts? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just completed a review saying the same thing as you, Jim Sweeney, but got caught in an edit conflict, so I will deep six it. I agree. Plus the large "In popular culture" section. I think it would be too much work for the nominator to effect changes in a reasonable time limit. I advise the nominator to see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The popular culture has significance due to intense rivalry and calls for a list big enough to cover. I'll check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists which you advised. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need to provide some context to explain the significance. I don't doubt that you are right, but the trouble with a list, in contrast to prose, is that the significance is not explained to a reader who isn't already familiar with the topic. Also a different heading would help, like "Evidence of intense rivalry" or some such heading. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps citations and some 2 liner explanation would do? And this is to be considered as a list as clarified here, so I'll get a peer review after improving all these aspects to list as FL. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- A good idea is to look at the GAs that pass. Follow the GAN page and look at the reviews articles get. Also, you can get an idea by looking at Wikipedia:Good articles/History, just to get an idea. Look for article topics that are similar to yours. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the issue here was about it being something between a list and an article (though I've seen other lists with descriptions). --lTopGunl (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, now it is a list IMHO. Although I confess I don't know much about the list criteria. But for a GA, it is way too listy. And you're right. I've seen Featured lists that have descriptions. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but the issue here was about it being something between a list and an article (though I've seen other lists with descriptions). --lTopGunl (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- A good idea is to look at the GAs that pass. Follow the GAN page and look at the reviews articles get. Also, you can get an idea by looking at Wikipedia:Good articles/History, just to get an idea. Look for article topics that are similar to yours. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps citations and some 2 liner explanation would do? And this is to be considered as a list as clarified here, so I'll get a peer review after improving all these aspects to list as FL. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need to provide some context to explain the significance. I don't doubt that you are right, but the trouble with a list, in contrast to prose, is that the significance is not explained to a reader who isn't already familiar with the topic. Also a different heading would help, like "Evidence of intense rivalry" or some such heading. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The popular culture has significance due to intense rivalry and calls for a list big enough to cover. I'll check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists which you advised. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just completed a review saying the same thing as you, Jim Sweeney, but got caught in an edit conflict, so I will deep six it. I agree. Plus the large "In popular culture" section. I think it would be too much work for the nominator to effect changes in a reasonable time limit. I advise the nominator to see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was the one actually favouring the list style and FL of this article, but had doubts if it could really be considered as a list since it doesn't merely list the conflicts? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's more of a list as I commented on the talkpage. Current featured lists being descriptive means this is good to go after the improvements suggested here. I'll check other criteria for FL. Thanks for the input. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)