Talk:Stages of growth model/GA1

Failed GAN

I have failed this article as a GA candidate because it fails multiple criteria. A good start to improving the article would be to address the points raised at the peer review. The article is not broad enough in its coverage (two sections have expansion needed tags). It also has a {{fact}} and a {{who}} tag that needs addressing; the lead is much too short (it should summarise the article), and the lists of key points under each stage need to be converted into prose, during this process more information could be added. Good luck to the editors who want to improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nev1, please know that I, one who Peer Reviewed this article, changed the article dramatically just a few hours ago. Perhaps you should check the older version to make sure that the GA fail was not because of anything I did very recently (and without the blessing of the primary editors). I don't necessarily think that I, with my drastic edits, improved the article much; but rather made it more clear what needs to be done. All of that said, as I mentioned above, I don't think this article is near GA quality yet. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As far I can see, Rmrfstar, the edits you made did improve the article and it certainly isn't your fault that the article didn't pass GA. The reorganisation of material you made started to address some of the areas that were missing and expanding the breadth of the article, however neither version of the article satisfy the GA criteria. For instance, according to WP:MOS "do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs". It's nothing personal, I just think the article was nominated prematurely. Nev1 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we remove the key point lists that follow each of the stage's descriptions? I want to verify that this is what you are referencing before I go ahead and remove them. Thanks for all your feedback! NurseAbby (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm referring to, remove them but replace them with prose. Nev1 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)