GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved user: With so many unreferenced sections, the article in its current state arguably meets the quick-fail criteria. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to hear Calvin999's input on what needs to be changed so I can fix it and the article can hopefully get approved. I will work on adding more references tomorrow but am not in the mood right now.Tortle (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- You only posted on my user talk about 90 minutes ago, and I replied. — Calvin999 10:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I meant that when you do do the review, you will obviously report what needs to be changed and Ill add references but I would prefer input from you and a chance at GA than you quick-failing it as Sovereign Sentinel suggested. Tortle (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Will have to be this weekend now. I haven't got time today and I have family issues to attend to. — Calvin999 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds great Calvin999, no rush, and thanks for giving me a general time. All the best, Tortle (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Will have to be this weekend now. I haven't got time today and I have family issues to attend to. — Calvin999 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I meant that when you do do the review, you will obviously report what needs to be changed and Ill add references but I would prefer input from you and a chance at GA than you quick-failing it as Sovereign Sentinel suggested. Tortle (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- You only posted on my user talk about 90 minutes ago, and I replied. — Calvin999 10:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sovereign Sentinel is right. I can't conduct a proper review and do checking of sources when so many sections are unsupported. Furthermore, a lot of references are either missing dates, access dates or works, and are using different date formatting. Ref 3 for example has no title and a url showing. Ref 60 has capitals in the title, which violates WP:SHOUT. Structurally, I don't think you need so many sub-sections with such a small and short paragraphs. I'm sorry but until you source all of the sections then this can't be reviewed seriously. — Calvin999 18:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will try to fix any missing references and all the small reference title issues and stuff. As far as the subsections, I already had to remove some because the original version was worse than this but Ill look into it. How does one fix the dab link? I clicked on that link that you put and after looking at it for 5 min, I still dont understand how that page works or what the issue really is. If its a quick fix, would you mind doing that for me? And if its not, could you explain it. I did understand the issues with the problematic link and I will try to find another reference. If I was to fix the issues and renominate it in a day or two, would you mind taking it up again because it would be fresh in your mind? Thanks Calvin999. Tortle (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- It means it links to a redirect. — Calvin999 18:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bearing in mind this used to be a WP:Featured Article... maybe have a look at it's nomination, its demotion, and also its Peer Review, for ideas on what was being done right, what was being done wong, and what other uninvolved editors thought. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I still dont understand Calvin999. The problem is the link to the lego disambiguation page from what I saw correct? And why is that a problem? And how can it be fixed? I think I did look over those pages Fortuna but not too thoroughly so Ill give them another lookover. Thanks Tortle (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, well I fixed all of the issues (including the dab link) except the one problematic link because the problematic link was not in fact problematic. I added sources for everything as well. I renominated the article and if you could pick it up, I would appreciate it due to speediness and the fact that its fresh in your mind Calvin999. Thanks Tortle (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I still dont understand Calvin999. The problem is the link to the lego disambiguation page from what I saw correct? And why is that a problem? And how can it be fixed? I think I did look over those pages Fortuna but not too thoroughly so Ill give them another lookover. Thanks Tortle (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Comments from uninvolved user: A remarkable percentage of the sources are Lego itself. There do exist aspects of a company for which you can cite the company; but a company is hardly an independent source on itself. A quick look showed that among the newly added sources is this one within the self-publishing part of Project Gutenberg. A sizable paragraph is sourced in its entirety to
- "USFIRST.org". USFIRST.org. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
but as of a few seconds ago, none of the material in that paragraph appeared on that web page. (Possibly it can be found here in the Wayback Machine.) Checklinks shows that more than a dozen links require updating, at least. And finding these problems took me less than one minute. (NB I don't want to criticize the work that has recently been done on the article: it's now better than it recently was, and time and effort went into this. But the improvement doesn't mean that the result is "Good".) -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ill work on more reliable sources Hoary but sometimes all that can be found is from lego itself so well see. As far as the checklinks results, all of those links work so I dont unserstand the issue and what would even need to be fixed. I already resloved clear issues from other checklinks results in the red but I dont understand these. Thanks, Tortle (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)