Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems pretty in-depth about the topic. However, many of the issues in Talk:PINK de Thierry/GA1 have mostly not been fixed, most notably the references. I will look at it later and see if the issues have been resolved. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really believe that I'll need a second opinion on this. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion: Of the issues brought up at the first GA review, issues 1-4 have been fully resolved. Issue 6, about notable independent sources, has been largely fixed; the article now references multiple independent reviews of the artist's work. Issue 7 (regarding copyediting) has been partly resolved, though there are still many copy-editing problems. Issue 5 (WP:EMBED) has clearly not been resolved.

If it were me, I would fail this nomination, while still congratulating the nominator on the progress the article has made in the past several months. I would recommend that the nominator request a peer review (following the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review) or request a copy-edit (following the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests). All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Quadell: I've failed the article due to the points that you have brought up. Obviously, this article needs a lot more work in order to be a Good Article. However, the nomination has been improved compared to the first GA Review. Epicgenius (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]