Talk:Michael San Nicolas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I will review this article. I know this has been languishing in the queue for a long time, but please be patient with me. This is a long, complicated article, about a subject I know little about, so it may take me a while to complete. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

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:

   Your prose is a list of facts and trivia about San Nicolas. Part of the reason it comes across this way is that your paragraphs are too short; see WP:PARAGRAPH. Your overall prose is weak; it should flow better and include transitions between ideas.

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

   Please see MOS:HEADCAPS for the MOS guidelines for titles of sections, which states that WP uses sentence case. Your sections also tend to be too short. For example, the "Issues" section doesn't need to be broken up into so many subsections.

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:

   The format of the sources are inconsistent and incomplete. For example, some have accessdates, while others do not. I suggest that you use templates to ensure that you include all the required source information.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There seems to be a problem with utilization of sources. For example, there's nothing in ref3 about the political positions of his grandfather and great-grandfather, and that Quitugua was his maternal grandfather. That same source only mentions that San Nicholas graduated from Southern High School. You don't have a source for the information about his marriage. Your sources need to support your statements clearly; the reports you cite (refs 8 and 9) only list the number of votes he received, and not that he "served three consecutive terms in the Guam Legislature". This is a problem throughout the article, so I won't cite any more examples. I suggest that you go through the content and make sure that the sources explicitly support your statements.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I'm not sure about this, since I don't know much about the topic. However, I'd suspect that there are more sources about San Nicolas' House ethics investigation. Perhaps more research needs to be done, although if you assure me that there isn't, I'll take your word for it. Good luck.

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

   I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Benefit of the doubt again.

5. Is it stable?

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

   There was some contention just this month (Feb. 2020) on the talk page about the removal of content in the "Financial services" section, although it's seemed to be resolved. There has been some discussion about if this article is promotional. There was an edit war back in 2018, which was also resolved in a productive way.

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:

   There is just one image, in the infobox.

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

   I wonder if there are more free images out there, since San Nicolas is a politician and there might be usable images of him on government websites. However, if you assure me that there are not, I'll assume good faith and take your word for it.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The current version of this article, without addressing the above, are enough to fail this article for GA. There are systematic issues that need to be resolved before it can pass to GA. I thought that it would take much longer to review, but since there are consistent issues with references, prose, and format, this review is more general. I didn't include many specific things for you to improve because so it needs so much work throughout the article. I usually give folks 7 days to work on issues, but for this article, I'm giving you 14 days (until 3/14/2020) to improve it.

No movement has been done in this GAN, so I'll have to, with regret, fail it. Please let me know if you choose to improve it in the future, and I'll assist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)