Talk:Double Tenth incident/GA1

GA-Fail[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. It has far too few references, and it could definately use an Infobox. Fix these problems, and then try again. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u for your review on the abovementioned. Fyi, I'm no newbie to GA reviews & its requirements and as such, I'm both surprised & confused by your remarks as it's highly ambiguous on why this article failed, let alone on how one should go about to improve it further:

1. References: What did u mean by too few references? Besides the 3 references mentioned, there're references to web & newspaper sources mentioned in the 'Notes' section too. Kindly show me what is the official benchmark then?

2. Major aspects: You are more familiar on its history? Can you elaborate to me specifically what is lacking?

3. Citations to reliable sources: Tell me specifically which section or statement is not cited then?

4 Infobox: Again, what infobox are u referring to?

Get an idea on what I mean now? I'll accept your decision if u can give me a complete & satisfactory reply on the issues raised. Failing which, I'll refer this article to a experienced reviewer for 2nd opinion next. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue No. 1-Most GA successes have more than 20 references. 5 references is much too few for a good Article.

For help with sourcing, see these examples: United States Special Operations Command and Erich Hartmann.

Issue No. 2-That was a mistake, although the lead section should be significantly expanded.

Issue No. 3-The sources you have are reliable, but yet again there are many too few. \

Issue No.4-Take a look at any Military History Article-it is on the side of the page. For example, take a look at Battle of Marion.

This article was mainly failed because of lack of references. The article that I am currently getting to GA has been tagged with improve references, and it has about 30 different references. I am going to tag your artcle with this, also.

These are my reasons for failing your article. Fix these, and I will be happy to pass. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this article is quite obviously not about a battle, so a Military Conflict infobox is not appriopriate. Second, the number of references should be assessed in relation to the length of the text, as well as its nature. Works largely based on a few detailed sources would not require referencing links at the end of every sentence.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I have been asked to take a look at this article and to give a second opinion on its GA review. To summarise, I don't think the article is quite at GA yet, but not for the same reasons as the first reviewer, and I believe that the article should have been put on hold instead of being summarily failed. In detail:

I agree that the lead is a little too short.

Infoboxes are a controversial topic; some people like them, some people don't. But they are not mandated in either the GA or FA criteria.

I do not agree that the prose is satisfactory, there is still some work to be done in polishing and MoS compliance - sentences beginning with numbers, for instance.

Most importantly, I do not agree with the comment about lack of references, and I have removed that tag from the article's main page. There are no rules for how many citations (I'm assuming that the reviewer means citations, not references) are "needed", or "enough", and certainly no correlation with article length. There is no reason why an article could not be listed as a GA (or even an FA) having relied on only a single source, depending on the subject. I can see no information that is uncited to a reliable source, which is the only requirement. Unless there is significant information missing as a result of having relied on only a few sources, and it doesn't appear to me that there is, then there is no problem.

However, looking to the future. The article has been failed now, and I don't believe that as it stands it is quite at GA yet, as I said above, so I don't think that taking it to good article review would be likely to move matters forward. I'll be quite happy to work with the editors to help get this article through its next GA nomination. Again, as I said above, I don't think that there's an awful lot to be done, but it's still got to be done. I know it's frustrating to have to go back into the GAN backlog, but I think it's the best option right now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my sentiments here too. As all can see, this article (posted on May 1) should be put on hold earlier so that the issues, which are not major in the first place, can be addressed & followed up accordingly but it was not even given a chance at all - Quick fail on the same day! The reviewer appears to be applying FA standards on a GA review! "20 references"? Kindly show me the official GA guidelines on the recommended no. of references for a GA & I'll send the cows home! I've written 11 GAs to date, & some of them have not even hit this 'magic number' but was passed successfully by senior reviewers on its merits. He claimed that the main reason why this article failed is 'cos of few references used but went on to add an inappropriate citation tag instead! I'm a member of WP:FACT and am familiar on its usage which I used during my patrols. Fortunately, Malleus removed them before I did. Adding "Military Conflict Infobox"? Are u sure it's appropriate as per the context of the article? This is getting worse than I thought!

Based on his review & actions, I'm not convinced that he is suitably qualified as a GA reviewer as compared to those I've interact with previously such as Blnguyen, EyeSerene, Dihydrogen Monoxide etc. I couldn't imagine how many similar articles were failed based on such criteria earlier? For the record, this is really the worse GA review I ever had & it really give me a bad taste on this GAN exercise now. Thanks Huaiwei & Malleus for your feedback, I may update fellow SGpedians on the status of this case wrt to their GA drive later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to this discussion (seems I've been mentioned here as a good review...I'm humbled :) Malleus is a good guy too). I don't see any valid reasons above for an outright fail, and would strongly suggest that it be put on hold, as Malleus suggested. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, another respected reviewer has also highlighted the same problem recently. I'm happy to note that sensibilities & fairness still exists here. As such, can u or any respected senior reviewers (whether mentioned or not) to revert on record its GAN status back to its first review status it deserved, & to conduct a proper GA review so as to bring a final closure on this case for all parties concerned (especially the SGpedia community) promptly? I don't think anyone on the GAN committee would want news of this incident (also curious watchers following this discussion thread now) to spread further, which may reflect badly on the GA Project and the hardworking reviewers involved by various WikiProject groups later. Secondly, also look at ways to see how to prevent such incident from happening again (what about the previous GANs that were 'quick failed' in this way as the original reviewer has not formally acknowledged nor display full accountability & still continue to review articles?) in the long term interest of the GA Project, lest u want your loggerheads from the FA camp to take this incident as a 'classic example' to fire pot shots at in the forums later. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for what's happened here...I assure you this isn't the sort of thing the GA project is overly proud of. Malleus, a quality GA reviewer whom I think highly of, has agreed to do a review of this article—his comments will be below (in the next section) when he's done. I will talk to the reviewer and hope that this sort of thing doesn't happen again in future. If you have any more issues, please leave a note on my talk page. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank u & Malleus in helping to resolve this fiasco speedily. I accept your sincere apology which u expressed on behalf of the GA project, though I find the apology should't be coming from u in the first place. Nevermind, I hope members of this project can learn from this episode & moved on to contribute positively for the betterment of the GA project in the long run. Thank you -- Aldwinteo (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]