Talk:Alphington Paper Mill/GA1

GA Review

The 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.

---

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

Reviewer: JML1148 (talk · contribs) 04:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to review this. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   GOCE did a really good job so not much needed here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot checks are all good, all sources look reliable, no copyvio or OR issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All good.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All good.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   See comments below.

Feedback

• Quotes need to have the citation that they are from immediately following it. There are two quotes that don't have this.
• Spot checks:

• Source 6 - all good.
• Source 10 - all good.
• Source 4 - all good.
• Source 12 - all good.

• 'floating' might be worth wikilinking.
• Lede could be a bit longer.

Fail justification

Mostly, this article is quite good. Very well writtten, no sourcing or copyright issues, good images. But where this article falls short is the length of the article. At 490 words, it is quite small for a good article. Obviously, very short good articles are a thing, but there are major components that the article is missing. There was a very large controversy regarding the demolition of the paper mill, yet it is not mentioned at all in the article. Google 'Alphington Paper Mill' and you will find loads of articles that could easily be incorporated into the article as sources. There is also no detail about any of the history of the mill's operations, bar the short 'Incidents' section. There has to be something interesting that happened in the mill's nearly 100 years of operation that can be sourced and added to the article. This feels like an article that has been rushed to GAN without doing proper research or due diligence before nominating. Before renominating, I would encourage this article to be expanded to be at least 700 words long, ideally 900-1100. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.