Talk:First inauguration of Muhammadu Buhari/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wikicology (talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this GA nomination, Alifazal. I will go through the article in details later today. I might be a bit slow with this review. If you think I'm too slow, please let me know as soon as possible. I'm an extremely slow reviewer but my aim is always to pass rather than fail; I would rather push to improve an article rather than simply fail the review. I will normally help with minor improvement rather than listing them here. Anything more significant than minor improvements, I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the GA criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Query

Fail

The article failed all the GA criteria and the nominator made no effort to address the problems. The article is poorly formated, not broad in scope and some of its contents are out of scope. The article may be re-submited but I strongly suggest that the nominator should read Inauguration of Barack Obama. Doing this will give them an idea of how a good article on similar topic should look like. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

General comments

Thanks for nominating this article for a GA review, Alifazal. Please, feel free to disagree with me on my interpretations of the GA criteria. First off, the second paragraph of the introduction section More than fifty representatives from foreign governments were expected to attend the inauguration. The government intended to spend less than ₦2 billion (US$10 million) for the ceremony needs to be rephrased to be suitable for inclusion. If more than fifty representatives from foreign governments were expected to attend the inauguration. How many representative from the foreign governments were present? If the government intended to spend less than ₦2 billion (US$10 million) for the ceremony, how much was spent? In its current state, that paragraph reads like the inauguration ceremony is yet to take place. I suggest it should be removed. If it must be included, then the answers to the questions I raised above should be provided with citation and it will read like "More than fifty representatives from foreign governments were expected to attend the inauguration ceremony but only xyz representatives were present". Also "The government intended to spend less than ₦2 billion (US$10 million) for the ceremony but ₦xyz billion were spent . Under the "Background" section, you wrote "On 24 May 2015, the All Progressives Congress issued a statement saying that outgoing President Goodluck Jonathan was "handing over a nation in deep crisis" and that there was "no electricity, no fuel, workers are on strike, billions are owed to state and federal workers, $60 billion are owed in national debt and the economy is virtually grounded".

This contents seemed to be completely out of scope and loosely relevant or irrelevant to the inauguration ceremony. Editors are advised to stay on topic, and to ensure that articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

On hold

I'm putting this review on hold for a maximum of 7 days. It seems the nominator is not ready to address the concerns raised over a week ago. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)