GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Teratix (talk · contribs) 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I am quickfailing this article per GACFAIL (3), article "has, or needs, cleanup banners". (Alternatively, it could be said the article is a long way from meeting GAC (2), "verifiable" or GAC (4), "represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias").
The article contains a large unsourced section ("Amenities") written in a promotional tone, which would justify applying cleanup banners for lacking sources and/or advertising. Although this section was written by another editor, it appeared in the version at the time of nomination. I initially thought it was just an unlucky case of last-minute vandalism, but as it turns out, it had been present in the article for over a month at the time. (Paragraph added 21 February, minor revision the next minute, nominated 18 March with no interceding revisions) Given it would obviously be absurd for such an experienced editor not to read the article he was nominating for GA, I can only presume you must have endorsed this additional section. – Teratix ₵ 14:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)