Content deleted Content added
David Fuchs (talk | contribs) posting review |
Titus Gold (talk | contribs) →GA Review: Reply |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 38:
**References need to be consistently formatted (some have only URLs e.g. senedd.wales, others have publishers instead, e.g. Welsh Board of Health.) There are missing author and date information from news articles, etc. And, again, the choice to have so many of these sources come from the Senedd and nationalist sources is also problematic. In particular, what makes Nation.cymru a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]?
I think given the structural issues I've identified, I don't think this is something that could really be addressed in the span of a good article nomination, so I'm failing at present. I would suggest getting additional feedback on the article from related wikiprojects, especially to get a more useful opinion on sourcing used. If you have additional questions, you can ping me for clarification. Thanks, [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #cc6600;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 18:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
:Thanks very much for this. I think this has been mostly addressed now. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 05:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::I notice that you have resubmitted this for GA review. I don't think the issues above are adequately addressed, so before that review ends in disappointment, here are some things to note:
::*'''References'''
::** [[MOS:LEADCITE]] was specifically raised as an issue. The article then had 10 references in the lead. Now it has 9. There are still too many citations in the lead, indicating the lead is not a summary of the main.
::** Reference formatting remains a mess. See below about random "op cit." references copied from somewhere. I would recommend conversion to SFN to allow consistent referencing in a bibliography - a process that will take a bit of work but would involve checking every reference.
::** This article has a lot of history but is relying on BBC history pages and newspapers. It really shouldn't be. The reviewer asked what made Nation.Cymru a reliable source for this? We have no answer to that but still 17 citations to that newspaper alone. In moving to SFN it would be good to phase out all newspaper sources. They are simply not good enough for this kind of article.
::*'''Media'''
::**I don't generally have much to say about images, but not really sure why a monument to Llywelyn the last or the castle at Rhuddlan are suitable leading images for an article on devolution.
::*'''Prose'''
::**I think I have comments on this too, but will leave until I have time to read the whole thing in one sitting.
::*'''General'''
::**I don't think the concerns about neutrality are resolved.
::**I do not see what has changed in the referendum and opinion polling section to address the concerns raised.
::**The other general comments are really also about prose which I am leaving for now.
::I think if this is a serious candidate for a good article, it needs a lot of work still. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 10:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks for these comments, much appreciated.
:::* I've removed all but one of the citations from the lead (all but two citations in the lead were essentially already mentioned in the body).
:::*Images point there seems to have since been addressed.
:::*I've changed party support bullet points into sentences.
:::*NationCymru is regulated by [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] like many large news article producers. It is often the only news organisation that reports on certain Welsh matters. I could swap in other news articles instead so that Nation.Cymru is used less?
:::*Neutrality: The body of the text looks neutral. Perhaps an addition concerning criticism of devolution perhaps?
:::*Changing references to SFN: I'd be happy to move to SFN but perhaps you would be able to turn your hand to that more easily than myself as it's not a format I'm particularly experienced at using. I'm not sure that everything would be covered without the use of some news articles?
:::Thanks again [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 16:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
::::The sections "Assessment of devolution" and "Lack of economic impact" are both new since the original GA assessment also. This heading now includes criticism of the devolution settlements from various viewpoints as well as criticizing the UK and Welsh governments. [[User:Titus Gold|Titus Gold]] ([[User talk:Titus Gold|talk]]) 17:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
| |||