Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Recruiter Central/Archives/Ugog Nizdast

Status: Completed

Date Started: November 30, 2013

Date Ended: January 15, 2014

Recruiter: Quadell

---

Introduction

Thanks for your interest in becoming a GA reviewer! I've looked over a couple of your peer reviews here and here, and they are a very good sign that you'll make an excellent GA reviewer. You've shown that you can carefully read through an article and find valuable suggestions for improvement, even examining the sources for further ideas and criticisms. I think the main thing you'll need to learn is exactly what is and is not required before an article can be promoted to GA status. That's what I hope to make you an expert in, starting with Step One.

Step One

The official criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria (often abbreviate WP:GA?), and it's essential that you fully understand them. I go back and check those criteria every time I review a GA candidate article. It's also extremely useful to read Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not (abbreviated WP:GACN), to see how to apply these criteria in practice, and to learn about common traps that reviewers could fall into. Finally, the guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (WP:RGA) can tell you even more about the process. So please read all three, but the most important one to fully understand is WP:GA?.

When you've read all three pages, and reread the criteria, please list any questions or comments you have below. Is anything unclear? Do any of the criteria surprise you? Do you think an article you've previously examined, such as Hyderabadi haleem, fulfills these criteria?

Once you have read them and we've gone over any questions, I'll make a quiz for you. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once again for all this. I've read the three links and got questions, but I assume they will get cleared once we dwell further into this and otherwise I'll ask them later. Here is one which kept bothering me: For accessibility of sources, it's explained in WP:RGA but I still wonder just how flexible this is. Say I attempt to review an article which consists of offline sources which I have no means of getting, all I can do is get the basic background of the topic and each of the sources or maybe ask for a quotation from them....would this be enough for checking the verifiability part of the review?

After examining the criteria carefully for the first time, I now realise it's quite lenient compared to what I used to think earlier. In terms of manner of style, there are so many guidelines which need not be enforced and for references, at some instances, even entire paragraphs can do without them.

I've checked Hyderabadi haleem again and made some edits to improve its prose. I think there is still a little that can be improved for it to be clearer but that would be too strict. Since I have limited ce skills, I'm not sure how to make it better. Also, a small thing came up: the article quotes Sanjeev Kapoor's book and also uses it in the "Further reading" section, is that allowed? Otherwise it seems to fulfil the criteria. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the accessibility of sources, that's an excellent question. The short answer is "yes". Usually there will be at least some sources accessible online—for books, I can often see at least some of the content at Google Books or Amazon—but occasionally there will be an article whose sources I cannot check at all. According to the criteria, all you have to check is that the sources are reliable (not self-published books or personal web sites), and you can usually tell that even if you can't read the source online. Still, if possible, it's a good idea to go further. I frequently will say things in a review like "You only have one source for a long paragraph, and I can't read that source. Can you verify that all the content of that paragraph is included in the source listed?" Occasionally, I've even gone to the library to check out one of the cited texts, but that's rare.

You are correct that the GA criteria are surprisingly lenient. Still, when I review an article, I will often bring up requests for improvement, even if they are not (strictly speaking) necessary for GA status. For instance, I might say "This paragraph does not have a source. Could you provide one?" If they don't, I'll still pass the article; but a GA review is a great opportunity to help the nominator to make the article as good as possible, so you might as well. Some nominators want to do as little work as possible, and are just looking for the ego-boost of having another GA to their name. But other nominators really want to make the article as good as possible (perhaps because they plan to nominate the article for Featured Status later), and they are grateful for additional ideas for improvement.

Finally, your edits to Hyderabadi haleem are excellent improvements. You are correct that a source should generally not be in both the "References" section and the "Further reading" section. GA criterion 1b requires that an article comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, and that page says "The Further reading section should not duplicate the content of the External links section, and should normally not duplicate the content of the References section, unless the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list. This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." So in a GA review, I would normally require that the book be removed from the "Further reading" section, unless there's a very good reason to keep it there.

I am glad to see your attention to detail here. I will create a quiz later today. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Quiz

Imagine that you are reviewing a Good Article nominee, and you come across the following situations. For each one, try to determine if it is

(A), a problem that must be fixed for the article to attain GA status,

(B), a short-coming that should eventually be fixed, though it isn't necessary for GA status, or

(C), not a problem at all.

In addition, if the answer is (A), please try to determine which Good article criterion is being violated. You can write down your answers if you like, or you can just decide your answer in your head.

1. A sentence in the lead has a spelling error, although it's clear what is meant.
   1. (A): Criteria 1a, typos are need to go.
2. The article contains a direct quote without an inline citation to give the source of that quote.
   1. (A): Criteria 2b, quotations and opinions are some of the content that must be backed up by an inline.
3. The article is missing an infobox.
   1. (B): There isn't any rule about infoboxes but most articles would benefit from having one.
4. The article uses British English in some parts, and American English in other parts.
   1. (B): Tricky one, forgot about this. Since criteria 1 is satisfied, it's recommended that the appropriate one be chosen per WP:ENGVAR to prevent confusion in future.
5. The article's lead section discusses only the positive aspects of a controversial subject, while the article's body discusses both the positive and negative aspects.
   1. (A): Criteria 4, it should be neutral and represent all the points with due weight and without bias.
6. The article contains several red links, and also contains links to redirect pages.
   1. (C): Will never affect the review and depending on the severity, it may need to be fixed just for cosmetic sake.
7. There are grammar errors, such as sentence fragments, in several places, though it's clear what is meant.
   1. (A): Criteria 1a again, grammar needs to be fixed.
8. The article contains non-standard date formats, such as "June thirteenth, '95".
   1. (B): It's not there in the criteria but I would feel uneasy letting this issue remain.
9. The article does not contain any images, although there are relevant public-domain images available on Commons.
   1. (A): Criteria 6, If relevant images from the Commons are available, then they must be used otherwise images are not compulsory.
10. The sources are formatted inconsistently, with some books including ISBNs and some not, and some including page numbers and some not.
    1. (C): Won't be much of a problem unless something that is likely to be challenged is backed up by such a citation, then more details like page numbers would be needed to improve the verifiability for the reader.
11. The article's lead section is made of a single sentence.
    1. (A): Criteria 1b, lead needs to be expanded per WP:MOS#LEAD.
12. The article on a work of fiction contains a plot summary written in the past tense.
    1. (A): Criteria 1b again, WP:FICTION needs to be in the present tense so that the events sound like it's being just read and not have taken place like an actual historical event.
13. The article uses only three sources, although those sources are reliable and seem to cover all the material in the article.
    1. (C): Can be left as it is.
14. A mildly-controversial statement in the article has an inline citation to someone's personal blog, which backs up the statement.
    1. (A): Criteria 2b, such statements need WP:RS and blogs are generally not.
15. The article contains an "External links" section below a "See also" section.
    1. (A): Criteria 1b, the WP:LAYOUT needs to be followed.
16. The article refers to the subject as "brilliant", "extraordinary", and "prestigious".
    1. (A): Criteria 1b, WP:PEACOCK words cannot be used unless it's from a direct quotation.
17. The article's title is non-standard, such as "Captain Bluebeard, pirate".
    1. (B): Serious issue but not enough to hinder the review, it can be dealt with later.
18. The article contains curse words in a direct quote that is relevant to the topic.
    1. (C): Can be left as it is.
19. The article has closely used a source, almost copying the text, but changing a few words here and there.
    1. (A): Criteria 1a, needs to be rewritten because of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE.
20. All of the sources for the article are in a language you can't read.
    1. (B): Depending on the situation, if I can't do even do a background check on the article I may need to consult with whoever is available to translate or even pass the review to someone else...but no criteria has been violated. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

When you are ready to see the solution key, go to User:Quadell/Key to see the answers. What did you get right, and what did you get wrong? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops...looks like I wasn't paying attention while reading question 15 and acted predictably...I seem to have answered the others correctly though. Now that I've realised that the criteria is not that strict, I can't help but wonder that there must be only a minority of articles with basic coverage that can never be a GA, almost all of them have the potential to be one. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, #15 was a bit of a trap, so no biggie. It appears you know almost as much about the GA criteria as I do! And I agree that nearly any article has the potential to be a GA, if a competent editor puts a little time into it. The most common reasons that GA noms fail, in my experience, are a poor lead, important information that's missing, lack of sources, or plagiarism... combined with a nominator who just doesn't want to put a lot of work into it.

For many of the (B) items above, I would still mention them in a real review and try to convince the nominator to fix them. In these cases, I'll still pass the review even if they aren't fixed (or I'll just fix them myself), so it's not all that big of a difference in practice.

Before I help you perform your first real-live review, I'd like to show you a few instructive case studies. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I sure hope after this I get some more confidence, right now...I'm still quite unsure and nervous about doing my first. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Case studies

The following case studies should show you a few real-world examples of reviews. There are many ways to perform reviews, and your way may differ a bit from mine, and that's fine. As you'll see, I tend to vary my reviewing style to fit the particular circumstances, so you may find some things you want to do similarly and some you want to ignore.

To start any review, I simply click on "follow this link" on the article talk page, and fill in the required fields. I like to add a note saying who the nominator is, just for my own benefit, but that's totally optional.

Quickfails

Most of the time, you will review and article and put it on hold for 7 days, giving the nominator a chance to fix the issues you have identified. A "quickfail" is when you simply fail the article right away. These are relatively rare. There are only three valid reason to quickfail an article.

(1) I will quickfail an article if it already has specific things that need to be done to improve it, things that the nominator already knows about and has not done. This will be the case if there are cleanup banners at the top of the page, such as {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, or {{unreferenced}}, or if there are multiple {{fact}} tags throughout the article. It can also be the case if the article already received a detailed GA review or peer review, but has not yet fixed the issues identified there. The nominator should fix these issues, and then renominate the article. This was the case at Talk:Toyohara Chikanobu/GA1.

(2) I'll also quickfail an article if it is a very, very long way from meeting the criteria, and I simply don't believe the nominator has any chance of getting the article GA-ready in the time it would normally be on hold. I use this very sparingly; it's usually better to simply leave the nomination on hold a week and let it fail at the end of that period. (This is what I did at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI/GA3.) But in cases where the situation is truly hopeless, or where the nominator does not seem interested in improving the article, I'll quickfail for this reason. I still try to give as much specific information as possible to aid either this nominator, or anyone else who might come after him/her. See Talk:Variable Checkerspot/GA1 for an example.

(3) Finally, if you detect significant copyright infringements in an article, you can quickfail it right away. This is because copyright violations are a legal problem that must be dealt with right away. You may want to also add {{subst:copyvio}} as well, depending on the severity. That's (sort of) what happened at Talk:I Am... World Tour/GA1.

To quickfail, just leave an appropriate description on the review page, and then follow the instructions: replace the {{GA nominee}} tag with {{FailedGA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}, filling in the topic and page appropriately, like this. A bot takes care of everything else.

Standard nominations

I'll focus on three article I reviewed: Architecture of Scotland in the Roman era, United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, and Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo. In each step below, I'll give examples from these three reviews.

Step 1: I always introduce myself and tell the nominator what to expect. (Sometimes they comment back to say hello or to thank me for taking on the review.) My initial introduction is often short and simple, like this or this. If I think I'll take longer than usual to perform the review, or if the nominator has been waiting a very long time for a review, I may mention it. And if I want to use my own particular style of reviewing, I'll let the nominator know, like this. For your first review, you should probably tell the nominator that it's your first, and that an experienced reviewer will be assisting you.

Step 2: Then I read through the article and take careful notes. Sometimes I print it out and use pen, but most often I enter comments in a text editor. Occasionally I edit the review page a little at a time, but I've found it usually works better to perform the main review all at once, so I wait until I have all my issues identified and ready to go. I'll usually mention issues that are not, strictly speaking, GA requirements, in the hopes that they will choose to improve them. Sometimes I copyedit the article myself to fix minor problems, but you don't have to.

Step 3: Then I leave my review on the review page. Sometimes, when the article is already a very strong candidate, I won't have many issues to mention at all, like this, and I'll just list them. Other times, I'll one of our reviewing templates to describe the issues. In this example, I fit all my concerns in the {{GAList2}} template. In this example, I used both a list to specify the issues, and a {{subst:GATable}} template to summarize. (In that last example, I went into way more detail than necessary, mentioning lots of issues outside the criteria—but I knew the nominator was planning to nominate it for FA status later, so I wanted to be as thorough as possible, as a favor to him.) Anyway, once all that is done, I tell the nominator that I'm putting the article on hold, and that he/she has 7 days to make the needed improvements. (If they ask for more time, I almost always say that's fine... but it's good to have a deadline, even if it's a soft deadline.) To put the article on hold, I go to the {{GA nominee}} tag on the article talk page and change "status=onreview" to "status=onhold", like this. A bot automatically notifies the nominator.

Step 4: The next part is up to them. Some nominators just ignore it, and I have to fail the nomination after a week, but most try in good faith to address my concerns. Once an problem is fixed, I indicate that in some way, such as crossing out my concern, moving the issue into a "resolved" section, or using a {{fixed}} template. If they run out of time and there are required issues that aren't resolved, and it doesn't look like they will resolve them any time soon, then I fail the nomination; but more often, everything gets taken care of. If you look at the final versions of Talk:Architecture of Scotland in the Roman era/GA1 and Talk:Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo/GA1, you can see the discussion that took place as they dealt with issues. (Talk:United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe/GA1 is still open, so you can watch in real time to see if the nomination passes or not.) If everything gets fixed, I pass the article; I leave a note congratulating them, and I sometimes give ideas for future improvements. Then I follow the instructions here: I replace the templates on the talk page and add the article to the appropriate GA list. A bot will notify the user and add the green plus sign to the article.

And that's all there is to it! I know it's a lot to absorb, but I think if you understand these case studies, you should be ready to go. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got the basic overview of it, don't have to go through those three articles old versions as though I'm reviewing them right? I just read the main review pages and briefly looked at the article, to understand what was being referred to. Thank you for the trouble of showing me cases of each possible scenarios too. Tell me If I have left anything to do. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate for you to look over the reviews, especially the sections added at various stages. But it is not at all necessary for you to re-review these article, so that's fine. If you think you're ready, it's time to begin your first (assisted) GAN review! – Quadell ^(talk) 19:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Great my first review, bit nervous...I'll choose and let you know after some time. I have to two questions: suppose an article passes the review but later it is found out that there is a big issue (let's say a major view was not represented properly)...would it still remain a GA and the suitable changes get made eventually; or will it go for a reassessment immediately? Is there a situation where the review is made invalid or is there just reassessment?

Second, they say that the reviewer should not have done significant part of the article or be familiar with it (not only the subject, like me reviewing an article in my watchlist where I very well know about its current state) and at the same time, won't reviewing topics completely alien to me, likely result in a serious mistake or overlooking? What are the most ideal situations? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of the time, if someone notices a newly-discovered major flaw in a GA, they'll fix it rather than putting it up for a GA Reassessment. (On the other hand, if an article is reviewed lazily, sometimes people will nominate it for GAR because they don't think the GAN reviewer did a good enough job.) I've seen a few cases where a new, unmentored reviewer passes several GANs without understanding the process, and the nominators just kind-of undo and invalidate the reviews by general consensus. But that's very rare, and I'm sure that wouldn't apply to any of your reviews.

As for your second question, that recommendation is there to make sure reviewers can be impartial. If you and I both created and improved an article, and then you nominated it and I reviewed it, the article would never get an independent, neutral review. So what's the best balance? Some reviewers go for articles they know well, so long as they haven't been major contributors to those articles, and it's fine to do that. I personally tend to review articles I only know a little about, since it can be valuable to see if the article is fully comprehensible to a non-expert. (If I'm concerned about completeness, I use the sources and Google searches to see if anything really important is missing—that's what I did at the top of this review.) But either is fine, so long as you avoid the one extreme of reviewing what is arguably your own work, and avoid the other extreme of trying to review an article where you can't hope to be sure if its complete or balanced without extensive research. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

First review

To start a review, simply look through the articles listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and pick one you're interested in. Have a quick look to see what shape it's in. For your first review, it's best to pick a subject you know something about or have an interest in. It will go better if you pick one that is not overly-long with consistent problems of text that goes off topic or has persistent issues of bias. (Those can take a long time to resolve.) But really, I'm willing to assist with any article you pick.

So which article do you think you'd like to review? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Spend some time reading about Khazar's retirement especially User:Khazar2/leaving...felt terrible since this is a great loss and I echo the issue which he raised. Anyway...moving on...

Thanks for your answers above. Okay, so I've read through those cases again to see the actual step-by-step process and took quite a bit of time to narrow down to a specific topic. I want to do Bodh Gaya bombings for my first (assisted) review since it's a topic that I'm familiar with and doesn't seem that complicated. I hope you'll be watching in case I screw up overlook something big.

I will make sure I have enough time in the coming days and initiate it only then. All I have to do is click "follow this link" right? Will refer to WP:GAN/I again. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great, Bodh Gaya bombings it is. Yes, to start the review, click "follow this link", leave a brief note saying that you'll review the article shortly, and save. Then let's discuss the article here. Read through it, and let me know what your impressions are about how well it fulfills each of the GA criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Initial observations

I think the major criteria under which it mainly requires improvement is 3. In terms of 3b, the sections ""Alleged warning" and "Reactions" focus on too much extra details like excess quotations and intricate content which should be omitted when referencing news articles; these sections need to be shortened. I think the entire article needs to be reordered under new sections which group the content properly, there is some stray statements which don't belong here and there. I need some time to think of a better way to arrange the sections and will tell it in the review. 3a: the article currently gives us the idea the the authorities are not sure of the suspects but updated content regarding this is in the rest of the article (Sources say that the Indian Mujahideen members have been arrested) but not merged well into it, for example: the infobox and lead are misleading.

Criteria 4, 5, 6 seem fine. Neutrality does not seem to be a problem, I've checked the images and the licenses seems fine (Maybe could use more pics, I'll see later) and it's stable. For Criteria 1, I've found that the lead needs to be rewritten since it does not summarise properly (above), by LAYOUT the sidebar navigational template goes up and the geo co-ordinates are missing. Also do we need to add the 'Contains Indic text' template?...this question is not for this article, just a random question while reading through WP:LAYOUT; they don't use this in Hyderabad.

I can't check further for criteria 1 and 2 because the article needs to be rewritten first. So should I go ahead and highlight the first para which I posted above in the review? Or should I go further and complete it with the GA review template placing it 'on hold'? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your analysis of the article is very insightful. I'll frequently run into that problem, where some aspects need to be fixed before others can be addressed. Since you don't yet know if the nominator is going to be willing to put in the effort needed to bring this up to GA status, I think the best thing to do would be to list all problems, but specify that the completeness and organization problems will have to be dealt with first. I would also mention that the lead does not adequately summarize all sections of the body, but say that this can't really be fixed until the article is ready. And I would say that there are grammar problems and MoS problems (if there are), but that these can't really be fixed until other aspects are dealt with first.

I've found the best way to do that is to give bullet points up front about the first, most important changes that need to be made. And then briefly list all shortcomings and strengths in a template at the end, such as {{GAList2}}. Then I would put in on hold, and see how the nominator responds. If the nominator deals with criteria 3a and 3b issues, then you can list specific 1 and 2 issues as well.

It's very possible that the nominator won't be willing or able to bring this article up to GA standards in a reasonable amount of time. If he's going to ignore it, or only deal with the easy and superficial concerns, you can fail the review 7 days after you put it on hold. But if he works diligently to address all concerns, you can keep working with him one point at a time until it's ready.

Finally, I don't think the Indic Text notice and geolocation facts are necessary for GA status. They're certainly good to have, however. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Now just keep an eye on the nomination over the next week to see if progress is being made. Congratulations on beginning an excellent review! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This article has a embedded list in the "Bombing" section, I looked through WP:EMBED but I still think it's justified here. Also what category does this go to? 2008 Mumbai attacks belong to warfare WP:GA/W, while 1996 Manchester bombing goes to world history WP:GA/H. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, all three of those lists should be converted to prose paragraphs. But it's a grey area, and it's really up to you. Also, I would recommend WP:GA/H, though WP:GA/W would be acceptable as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Result

Bodh Gaya bombings (GAN)

A week has passed and unfortunately, the editor did not seem to have time to respond to my suggestions. I have closed the review and updated the talk page. Got a little confused about the subtopic field while closing it... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful review! Although the nomination was unsuccessful, the review was very appropriate, and you should feel proud of your work. If the nominator (or anyone else) later wants to improve the article, they will have a very useful and detailed blueprint on how to do so. Unfortunately, you weren't able to participate in the back-and-forth part of the review process, but I hope this was a useful experience anyway.

By the way, the {{GA nominee}} template uses a "subtopic" parameter, but, confusingly, both {{GA}} (for successful nominations) and {{FailedGA}} (for unsuccessful ones) use the "topic" parameter instead. I fixed that for you.

So what would you like to do for your next review? I'll recommend some nominators that I know will at least be responsive, since I know it can be a little dispiriting when you spend time crafting a careful review, only to see it ignored.

• Legends of Bikini Bottom, about some SpongeBob SquarePants cartoons, was nominated by Mediran. He's always eager to respond to reviewers' suggestions.
• Cyclone Joy, an Australian storm in 1990, was nominated by HurricaneHink, who has tons of experience with Good and Featured articles.
• Disappearance of Madeleine McCann was nominated by SlimVirgin, a very experienced Wikipedian. I know she's looking for a particularly detailed review.
• Alyssa Miller, a fashion model, was nominated by TonyTheTiger, who nominates and reviews tons of articles for GA status.
• Try Some, Buy Some, a George Harrison song, was nominated by JG66. I've reviewed several of his nominations, and he's always great to work with.

These are just suggestions, and you can feel free to pick any article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing what you choose. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll remember that next time, to be on the safe side...I had just copy-pasted the nomination template field over the failed GA. I'm happy I did this well and did learn the basics. In fact, I won't be surprised if I decide later to nominate the article myself (if the previous major contributor does not have time) since I now know so much about it (This is allowed, right?).

I think I'll go with Madeleine McCann. If I'm not wrong this is reassessment. It seems interesting and also maybe the one where I can learn the most from. I'll start the review within a few days since I'm not free right now. Hopefully, I'll seize it before anyone else does but I don't mind choosing something else from this list.

Could you give some advice regarding finding the statements which must require inline citations? What do you search for always in any review? I do know that figures, quotes, controversial statements and opinions always need one but otherwise I'm sort of confused with the likely to be challenged issue. They say something about more than 50% chance is the criteria but that seems to subjective and I'm not even sure how to judge. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Good choice, with the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article. I'm sure you'll be very thorough.

Regarding the inline citation criterion, this is a difficult question, and different reviewers disagree on how stringent to be. I personally think it's best if nearly every statement is cited. (Even if there's only one citation for a paragraph, I'm happiest if that citations covers everything in the paragraph.) But I recognize that I can't refuse to pass a nomination for lack of citations when one is not required by the GA criteria. I ask myself: Could a rational person doubts the statement? If a person who knew anything about the topic said "I'm not convinced. Prove it.", would that person sound insane? If a doubt is reasonable, then I consider the statement "likely to be challenged", in my opinion. Other reviewers are a bit more lenient. But if you allow a statement to go uncited, and someone later says "I don't think that's true", then you probably haven't done a thorough job as a reviewer.

Lastly, yes, it's fine for you to improve an article after you review it, and submit it yourself for GA status, if you wish. I did that myself with the Trapper Nelson article. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your answers. Looks like someone has beaten me to the article. Fine...I now choose Cyclone Joy. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Second review

Cyclone Joy (GAN)

Hmm...this has turned out to be a bit harder than I thought, mainly because not being familiar with this topic range and this being a veteran user's work—findings areas for improvement or flaws is even harder; I'm not even sure if what I found out is useful. I feel inclined to be lenient and just pass it since at first glance, since it seems to fulfil all the criteria.

This is what is nagging me, I feel that the article is a bit hard on regular/laymen readers. I remember once reading from WP:LINK that a reader should not be forced to click on a link. Since I have only today, studied a bit about Cyclone terminologies, this article itself struck me as too technical and these terms must be explained over there itself. For example in the "Met history" section, "In the middle of December, the monsoon trough persisted along the western Pacific Ocean, spawning a pair of tropical disturbances both north and south of equator. In the northwestern Pacific Ocean, the system became Typhoon Russ.[1] On December 15, a tropical low formed east of the Solomon Islands. During the next few days, the system passed south of the country while slowly organizing." (underlined terms need to be elaborated)

Apart from this main issue, another suggestion would be the make the lead more clearer. Like introduce in the start that it affected X number of cities in Queensland, Australia rather than just mentioning all those cities separately; not everyone is familiar the geography of this area. Maybe also the last section could be rearranged and split for better flow. All these issues are under Criteria 1 and I think the rest (2—6), it will probably pass in.

I did read some GAs on this topic (among the vast collection) and found that no reviewer had issues with the terminologies; I also have read WikiProject Cyclone's style guidelines. Maybe it would be silly for every article to explain these terms repeatedly since all these articles are quite closely similar structure-wise and the individual articles would suffice. So I guess this won't be in the way of the review then....what do you think about it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

These are some good insights. First off, I think your suggestion about the lead sentence is very good. Note the lead sentences for the FAs Cyclone Rewa ("...affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean in December 1993 and January 1994"), Cyclone Orson ("...was the fourth most intense cyclone ever recorded in the Australian region"), and Cyclone Waka ("was one of the most destructive tropical cyclones ever to affect the South Pacific Kingdom of Tonga."). Each of these clearly and concisely explains what the cyclone was and why it was important. This lead sentence does not. I would definitely make that suggestion in a GAN review.

As for the terminologies, I often encounter similar problems when reviewing articles on athletes for sports I don't follow. (I'm still not 100% sure what a "century" is in cricket.) My rule of thumb is, someone familiar with the general category should be able to follow the article without clicking on a link, but someone new to the topic need only be provided an explanation or a link to explain any terminology. I think you're right that we don't normally require an article on a particular cyclone to explain the details of how storm systems work, so I don't think that's too much of a problem. (If an unfamiliar term is neither explained nor linked, however, you should definitely bring that up.)

Great questions. I look forward to seeing your review. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've done most of it and it is on hold. Updated talk page and just a few things need to be checked once these issues are addressed. Hope my review is thorough. Merry Christmas! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The review looks good to me. Now we just wait for Andrew's comments and improvements. A very merry Christmas to you as well! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you and the nominator have different ideas about the lead sentence. That happens sometimes, and it takes some care to know the right way to handle the situation, especially when the nominator has plenty of experience with Good Articles. You just have to ask yourself, is the way he prefers a true violation of the GA criteria? Sometimes, even if I'm sure my way is better, I'll just say something like "I still think my suggestion would improve the article, but it's not a requirement for GA status." But in other cases, I have to insist on the change, failing the article if it isn't made. Which do you think is more appropriate in this case? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I better pass it. Other than that boldface link which I'll remove, the current lead first sentence mentions the main reason what makes the subject notable...that's enough. I was emphasising on WP:CONTEXTLINK which is under WP:LEAD; this made the sentence sound more redundant. I couldn't think of better wording and most of the FAs I've looked through linked cyclone by usually saying "Cyclone X was the fourth worst cyclone", in this case simply forcing this link makes it sound silly. Besides cyclone, the season and main location affected were always linked, guess I better suggest that.

It's very tough to find out when the line for criteria 1 and maybe even 3 are crossed since they are subjective. I think I would be too strict (or wrong) if I insist on such changes yet I don't want to seem too lenient but then again, I myself am not sure on such things. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your plan sounds wise. It's true that it's hard to figure out what the right balance is. It gets easier, the more experience you gain. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've replied there, passed and added it to the list. Learnt quite a bit from this one. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Delightful! It looks like you did everything properly, and all I had to do was provide a little advice here and there. I think with one more review under your belt, you'll be ready to graduate, unless we hit a significant snag. What article would you like to try next? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm almost there...Okay I choose Asia Bibi. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Third review

Asia Bibi (GAN)

Excellent. The nominator, 1ST7, is great to work with. In a article about such a recent and controversial topic, I'd recommend that you check carefully for problems with neutrality, reliability of sources, and words to watch. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Will be able to begin my complete review now but here are some issues which I have doubts about (in order).

• Early life: The quote about the village, details about her attending mass at a specific church and related content can be done away with. Other than not being reported by mainstream media sources, they also seem a bit trivial for this article. The plight of Pakistani Christians can be stated without attributing that specific reporter as many other sources share this view. But not sure as to whether it really belongs here rather than in Christianity in Pakistan...maybe we could shorten this mention and put a {{Further|}} under the section title? Also have a similar doubt about the assassinations Taseer and Bhatti, just how much is relevant here or belong to their respective articles?

This section will end up being really stubby, so I'm still wondering what to do. How about we just skip this section and merge it with the next one, after all, the subject is notable only for a single event.

I only partly agree with this point. Yes, the person is notable only for a single event, but it is still an article about the person, so information about her early life is relevant. So I think "details about her attending mass at a specific church and related content" are worth keeping. I can see the argument that they're not necessary, but I don't think it's a 3b concern, so I don't think it should be an issue at a GAN review. I don't think merging this section into the next one would be appropriate. Also, the article only discusses the plight of Pakistani Christians in a single sentence, which I think is an appropriate level of detail. I don't think it matters much whether the assessment is credited to Declan Walsh or not.

The direct quote about the village, on the other hand, isn't really appropriate. There's no need to use the journalist's copyrighted wording to describe the village, and it doesn't really say much that's relevant to the topic of Asia Bibi. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've looked into this some more and I'm now of the opinion that this article should be renamed to "Asia Bibi Blasphemy Case" and have a redirect for "Asia Bibi" (like Madeline McCann). It could be case of a pseudo-biography since we can't write much of a biography of such a low profile person besides this main incident. What should I do? I can proceed with my review after this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Technically, the name of an article is not supposed to be within the purview of a GAN review, but I think 1ST7 is likely to be open to the suggestion. You may try mentioning it to him/her separately, to see what he/she think about the proposal, and then do the review. Would that work for you? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I'll ask 1ST7 right now what should be done about this. Even though it's clearly beyond the criteria, I would still like to know to whether to rename it since the review may get affected; In fact, the above comment itself depends on this. I'll start it anyway...don't want to keep anyone waiting. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Arrest and imprisonment: Here where things get interesting...
  • First para is narrated in a very long and informal way, I'm sure with some improvement in prose it could be made into just four lines. There is even a statement using the word apparently and "she having a previous property argument" may need to be removed due to it being weakly sourced.

I would not recommend such a dramatic cut to four lines. The "apparently" statement does need to go. But I found the "running feud with Noreen's family about some property damage" statement to be fully supported by the source, Der Spiegel, which is very reliable. So I would advocate more concise prose, and do away with the "apparently" sentence, but not much else. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Raised my suspicion because no other source mentioned this. Hmm, I better be careful next time in judging sources which I've never heard of before. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Also, the block quote to the right is from just a single reference. I didn't find this quote mentioned in any other more better sources (in this case, more reputable news agencies) and question its inclusion here. Again, I'm not so sure. Help?

I don't find the block quote at the source at all. If it's adequately sourced, and if "Catholic Herald" is deemed a reliable source, then I don't think it's a problem... but if it can't be sourced, it'll have to be removed or replaced. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Second para has this statement: "However, because the country's...she had difficulty defending herself in court" which is a WP:REDFLAG issue. No other reference mentioned this and the given one is less than satisfactory.

Yes, the source is clearly strongly biased, and if the statement can't be supported by anything better, I'd say it should go. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Third: again some too much extra wording and details. Also repeated use of "it was reported" and an out-of-place quote (turns out it's from her memoirs, so it can be put there).

I don't think there are too many details to be a 3b concern. But if any details are only supported by unreliable sources, they might need to be removed. You're right about the repeated wording and the misplaced quote. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Local reactions: Some issues here and there. How is the opinion of McCarthy (seems to be a non-notable journalist) relevant here...again, I think it should be removed.

McCarthy's assessment is notable because it was published by NPR, which is a reliable source. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I also propose that it be rearranged and retitled to: sections "Background and arrest", "Prosecution and imprisonment", "Local reactions" (+subsection "Assassinations of Taseer and Bhatti"), "International response" (+subsection "Memoirs").

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• And finally, I have a query about WP:SCAREQUOTES. Take the following instances from the article: In response, he told reporters that he was "committed to the principle of justice for the people of Pakistan"...Julie McCarthy suggested that the country's "more peaceful majority views" had been overshadowed by the more vocal fundamentalists.... they considered Christians to be "unclean" and Noreen "wept inconsolably" on learning of Taseer's assassination.

If I'm not mistaken, all of the above qualify and the quotation marks need to be removed. Since most of these are indirect speech I don't even see the point of them here: In his statement, he described his "spiritual closeness" with Noreen and urged that the "human dignity and fundamental rights of everyone in similar situations" be respected. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think those are direct quotations, not scare quotes. Scare quotes are when no one is actually being quoted, but you use quotation marks to lessen the impact (as in "He was 'punished' with a harsh warning" or "She was a 'Christian' who never went to church"). I think these are all direct quotes, and should be in the sources. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I've had a wrong idea about scare quotes, I thought they applied in these cases too. Doesn't extending these marks look much better: Julie McCarthy suggested that "the country's "more peaceful majority views" had been overshadowed by the more vocal fundamentalists.", or just have none at all? Since the above are cases of paraphrasing rather than quotations right? Like this: Wikipedia:Quotations#Example, though now this is all probably not under the criteria anymore. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are several valid ways of handling quotations. But so long as the quote is true to the source, and so long as we don't have quotes that are so much longer than necessary that it becomes a copyright concern, it should be okay. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns you identified, I would say that the lead is a bit short, and fails to fully summarize all important sections of the article. Thanks for you attention to detail in this article! Do you think you're ready to post the review, or do you want to discuss it more here first? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, I'll make sure to mention that after the rest of it is ready. It's good that you pointed out this before I did the review, the two areas I was mistaken in, was judging two sources without giving them a proper background check and being too strict about "the minor details" part—even if right, it is outside the scope of this review...I'll make sure not to forget this next time. I'll start it now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we wait to see how the nominator responds. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, suggestions have been addressed and I've passed the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. This was a very thorough review, and I am convinced you are ready to perform GAN reviews on your own now. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this was my best one so far except for the part where I moved the article and confused Legobot about this review. It was good experience learning from you and doing these three reviews. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)