Talk:Disappearance of Don Lewis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ex Parte (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

Hi, I've begun the process of examining this article. I'm satisfied that this article survives initial inspection under WP:GAFAIL based on the following:

1. The article is clearly not a long way from meeting any of the six good article criteria. If the article isn't already there (and my full review might very well reveal that it is), it's certainly close.
2. The article does not contain any copyright violations. I've conducted a copyvio check and found nothing warranting further examination.
3. The article is not in need of any cleanup banners.
4. There is not any edit-warring taking place on this article.
5. There has been no prior GA review which presents any issues which have been left unresolved.

WP:GAFAIL preliminary review: ✓ Pass

Accordingly, I'll begin the process of a complete GA review soon. I suspect, based on my initial inspection, that I'll have a few suggestions for improvement, but on the whole I'm convinced that this article will pass GA review rather quickly. I look forward to working with you!

Full review

GA 2(d) issue

@Nice4What: I'm now beginning the process of conducting the full review. Although I didn't see any need to highlight this in my preliminary review, one thing was flagged during my original copyvio check which I feel should be addressed. There are stark similarities in both phrasing and organization between this article and this microblog post. This is relevant to my analysis w/r/t GA criteria 2(d), which requires me to check for possible plagiarism. For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that this article is plagiarized but I'd like to hear some comment from you on this matter. If you could address the similarities I noted before I proceed any further, it'd be much appreciated.

You can review the results of the copyvio check by clicking here. -- ExParte ^talk 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Update. Upon further examination, the blog post no longer presents any issue. Disregard my prior inquiry. I'll be moving forward with this shortly. -- ExParte ^talk 05:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Rubric assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I think there's still some room for tightening up some aspects of this article, in particular if you intend to pursue FA down the road, but as of right now, it meets the GA standard. I'll include some suggestions for future improvement in my closing statements which you might consider looking into.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I did have some red flags here in my copyvio check which indicated possible copyvio/plagiarism, but it quickly became clear that the blog post in question was not subject to any copyright claim and was maintained by a Wikipedia editor as a sort of staging ground for their edits. As such, I dismissed the red flag.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I think this article actually does a great job staying focused. Some might fault it for being shorter than some GA-level entries (I actually think it's pretty much right in the sweet spot for GA size), but it tells the entire story as reported by reliable sources and it does so concisely. Good job in this respect!

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   As I'll discuss in my closing statements, the article could do with a little more imagery given the available material regarding this subject, but this is adequate for GA purposes.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Closing statement

Congratulations on a successful GA nomination! I have a few suggestions for improvement moving forward, none of which were necessary for attaining GA level:

• Add more imagery. My review lead me to a lot of potentially-related imagery which could help take this article to the next level. Much of it also happens to be usable (under applicable copyright standards). This could be something to look into.
• Elaborate more on the Tiger King aspect of the story. It's discernible from what is included in the article, but I think there's a lot of room for elaboration w/r/t that. That seems like a pretty easy avenue for expansion and improvement.

Again, great work and congratulations! -- ExParte ^talk 17:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)