Talk:Xiaxue/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk • contribs • count) 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Please see comments below, under 'MOS issues' and 'Prose' issues.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are enough references to the amount of content, the sources are Ok and this contains no original reasearch.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See comments below. The article is focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
All seems fair to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
The article is stable, it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No non-free media; see comments below.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

First of all I must point out, that this is a START class article.
MOS issues
1. Please see WP:CAP for the caption guidelines. The current picture is Ok, but the caption is not. It does not provide relevance to the topic. It says:
  Adrianna Tan and Xiaxue (right).
  
  It does not say where, it does not say when OR it doesn't say why (if possible).
2. The minute I started reading it, I found it was incomplied with WP:OVERLINK. It specifically says:
  Avoid linking plain English words.
  
  As a rule of thumb (see below), link on first reference only.
  
  It is linked with plain English words, and some words are linked on other references too.
3. And, as this is a biography article, this has to comply with MOS:BIO, which is the Manual of Style for Biographies. According to MOS:BIO, the article (in the opening paragraph) should have Xiaxue's:
  Name(s) and title(s), if any. Done
  
  Dates of birth and death, if known. Not done
  
  Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); Done
  
  In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable.
  
  Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
  
  What the person did; Done
  
  Why the person is significant. Done
Prose issues
1. As I was reading this, I realised that her diary has nothing to do with a blog.
  
  The 'Personal Life' section should be expanded and two new subcategories should be made: 'Early Life' and 'Present'. And in the 'Early Life' section should be the story about her diary, which led to her starting her blog.
2. The 'Controversy' section in the article should be in the 'Blog' section as a third level header. (=== Example ===)
3. This article should have an infobox at the top, as most biographies have.
This article has omitted a section called 'Early Life'.
This article needs a lot of work done before it can be passed.

FAIL — This is a Start-Class article, so PLEASE do not ask for another assessment. You have gotten recommendations from me, so there you go. This article DOES NOT BY FAR reach the GA criteria (WP:WIAGA) Thank you, – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. You have raised some valid concerns, so I will not appeal the outcome of the review. In a few weeks, you would see the article nominated again, with your concerns addressed. Since you are new to GA reviewing, I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and seek advice from a mentor. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but PLEASE have the article go through C-Class and B-Class before it is nominated again. You cannot skip C and B class before you go to GA standards. And can you inform me when it is renominated again? I would like to review it in a future time. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)}

17:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last I knew, there was nothing explicit about going through each class. Yes, it is more typical, but not required. Chris857 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]