Talk:Grey Wolves (organization)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brambleclawx (talk · contribs) 01:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Hi there. I am Brambleclawx, and I will be reviewing this GA Nomination! My appearances may be a bit sporadic, so please bear with me. Brambleclawx 01:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Upon a quick preliminary read-through, the article definitely does not meet any quick-fail criteria, which is good. Seeing as this is an article about a currently-active political party, I will be looking in particular for NPOV, reliable sources, and article stability. Brambleclawx 01:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have not been as able to edit as I thought I'd be; as suggested by User:BlueMoonset this article will be returned to the list to allow participants in the GA Cup a chance to look this article over instead. Regards, Brambleclawx 00:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As I am unclear as to the procedure to return a nomination to the pool, I will tag this review for 2nd opinion. Brambleclawx 00:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Brambleclawx, returning the nomination to the pool does not involve the second opinion option; the nomination is more likely to languish waiting for a second opinion, especially with the GA Cup in full swing—participants get credit for new reviews, not second opinions. I'll take care of everything; the next review will be started on a GA2 page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware of the procedure for that. Brambleclawx 01:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Comments:

   • In the "Name and symbolism" section, the article says "They are "characterised by...""; it's not very clear what the word "they" is referring to here (the political group, or actual wolves). Also, the last two paragraphs of the section in particular don't seem to fit the section name. Either change the name of the section, or move those into another section please. Brambleclawx 17:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: