Talk:The Case for Impeachment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Srich32977 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Failed On hold "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination for the time being. This is how the article, as of June 13, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Verifiable?: Yes

3. Broad in coverage?: To soon to tell. E.g., this article is about a book published a few weeks ago. So WP:Recentism and the rush of current events are at play as to whether or not the book itself will be WP:NOTEWORTHY as events surrounding Trump unfold.

4. Neutral point of view?: Problematic. The article topic itself is POV. What will happen remains to be seen. Also, are there critical reviews of the book?

5. Stable?: No (although the spate of changes are not actually the result of edit warring – they are more related to efforts to embellish the article with off-topic items).

6. Images?: Yes

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

PS – As I have made changes to the article, I will not object if my GA fail is reverted by another reviewer. I think the changes I made were all within sound editing guidance and not substantial. – S. Rich (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I am not posting the FailedGA template while my review is "pending". – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977:Hey there, it's totally okay, please close this review as failed. I've reflected on this for a good deal of time during a break. It'll give me more time to improve it further. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Final word on the particular items: each "no go" will work itself out as time passes. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Srich32977:Thank you, and totally no problems with the review and the close. Sagecandor (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: :User appears to display transparent agenda, lamenting efforts to improve articles on Wikipedia that might have some criticism of Donald Trump. See case studies: [1] [2] [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)