Talk:College Republicans/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I will be reassessing this article to determine whether it still meets the Good Article criteria. Any user is encouraged to assist in improving the article to keep it up to GA standards. Thanks. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See issues below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See issues with Twitter sources below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	A majority of the "Notable Organizations" section is unsourced, and almost all of the "Notable members" section is unsourced as well. "Activities" also needs more sourcing, with the first paragraph entirely uncited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The lead of the article contains several lines that are a little too close to this source, which is not directly cited in the article (as far as I can tell)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This one is close, but a little more prose on the organizations themselves, in addition to the prose describing the organizational style and governing setup of the organizations, would definitely be helpful.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Only five edits (including mine) in the whole of the calendar year up to this point.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Three images present: File:College Republicans at OSU.jpg – all good File:College Republicans at George Fox.jpg – all good File:North Florida College Republicans for McCain.jpg – all good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Issues with criterion 1a

Lead

• The article is orange-tagged as a whole, which could qualify for a quickfail but I will do the full review anyways in hopes that it can be salvaged.
• Content in the lead should not be directly sourced; rather, it should be repeated and expanded upon in the body of the article and sourced there.
• Republican Party (United States) is double-linked in the lead - this is not necessary
• "and introduced more party members to the Republican party" → phrased as if the people are already members of the party; also "Republican Party" should be capitalized

Notable Organizations

• "Organizations" in the section header should be lowercase
• Links should be to the College Republican National Committee and the College Republicans United, rather than including the parentheses and abbreviations in the link as well. I'd be cautious about describing an organization as notable if it is a redlink, as well, as that is often used as the working definition of "notable" in instances like this
• "As of 2021, notable independent state College Republican organizations include" → this should be updated to 2022. Also, again, "notable" is iffy here given only two are linked.

Governance of organizations

• "The College Republican National Committee (CRNC)," → this abbreviation has already been given twice, no need to explain or define it again, just use it
• "The CRNC National Chairman and his or her national" → "his or her" to "their" for simplicity
• "College Republicans United (CRU)" → this abbreviation has already been given two or three times, no need to define it again, just use it
• "The state federations of New York, Texas, Mississippi, and North Dakota, as well as the federation for U.S. territory of Puerto Rico" → link New York, Texas, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Puerto Rico
• "and the national College Republican National Committee" → use the initialism

Notable members

• Orange-tagged for lack of citations, which seems appropriate given there's only one
• "Matt Wiltshire, Guinness World Record holder for most political utilizations" → seems like a stretch for "notability", given he's not linked
• There is inconsistency between "US", "U.S.", and "United States"

Activities

• "During election season, campus chapters are responsible for organizing and implementing the campus canvas" → canvassing is mentioned above already
• The entire first paragraph is unsourced
• "Members use door-to-door canvassing" → mentioned now twice already

See also

• I feel as though the CRNC is linked and referred to enough already that it doesn't need to be listed here

Referencing issues

• Author of Ref 2 and 8 doesn't have to be linked since it's a redlink and there are other authors who aren't linked at all
• Links should be added to all website fields where applicable
• While Twitter is not the absolute worst source to be using for these sorts of things, it would be much better to find something more reliable, especially given that only two of the five Twitter sources come from verified accounts.
• I have run a script to convert all date formats to mdy, so that is taken care of.

Overall review conclusion

WP:GAR states that An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity. As there has been no activity on the review for seven days, I am closing the review. My conclusion is that the article fails GA criteria 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 3a at least, and therefore will be delisted. If improvements are made in the future, and the article is brought up to par, it can be renominated for GA. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)