Talk:Email spam/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is simply not a good article as of this date. It has too many problems, some of which are already flagged by several tags in the article. The article lacks coherent discussion of topic. It's a potpourri of aspects loosely bundled. It links to several topics (main articles) that are of poor quality themselves (e.g., 'Appending' section). Kbrose (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why that anon IP nominated this article. I thought about removing it, but that might be against Wiki policy for GAs, so I thought it better not to do anything. Either way, this article is definitely not GA material, and I think that IP was acting in bad faith for some reason. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well since this article is a former featured article candidate, the IP probably thought it would automatically make it GA material. I don't think he/she was acting in bad faith, they probably just have a poor understanding of what qualifies a good article. But then again, I could be wrong. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ABF, right? Or is it AABF (always assume bad faith)? The article can be made a GA with not a lot of work. What is needed is 1) a review of the article, 2) an opportunity to make the fixes. No GAN should ever be failed in less than a week no matter how bad the article is, but saying "too many problems" is useless in any review. How about listing a few, and following the principle, show, not tell. No article would ever get to FA if no improvements were ever made. One hour? I'm reversing the closure. 199.125.109.76 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea should be to first write a good article and then submit it for review, not the other way around to see what could pass. As pointed out already, the article has several flagged issues, indicated by large banners in sections, so it should behoove submitters to fix those before even bothering reviewers with the task. Kbrose (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I have to agree with kbrose here. While I don't think this article is a disaster, I also don't think it is anywhere near close enough to qualifying for a GA to benefit from a GA review. One thing I noticed while reviwing WP:RGA is that anonymous IP addresses are not supposed to nominate articles for GA. The other killer for this is that the article is 77k long, well over the size where it should be trimmed back and/or split. Before any reasonable review can be made, this size reduction needs to be made since it will almost certainly radically change the article. This anon IP, 199.125.109.76, has made good edits to this article in the past and I have thanked them for it, but I think this nomination is a mistake. Wrs1864 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I do a lot of things that IP users are not "supposed" to do. Like make good contributions. If you were reading WP:RPA, that is about reviewing an article, not nominating an article. The guidelines for each are "Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." The reason I nominated it is yes I have made many very substantial contributions to the article, not the least writing the lead section, and I nominated it as a way to prod it towards GA. There is no excuse for an important article to languish for a year without becoming GA. Give it a week for people to work on it, please before just out right rejecting it. As to size, I can easily delete the whole thing... 199.125.109.69 (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of quick fail criteria:

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
   • No.
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
   • No.
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.
   • No.
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
   • No.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
   • No.

So barring a quick fail, how about giving some time to fix any suggestions, or even fixing them? 199.125.109.69 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply, an article should not be nominated for GA assessment unless the nominator has read the GA criteria and genuinely believes the article, as nominated, meets all of the criteria. –Whitehorse1 05:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to choose which criteria it lacks?

1. Well-written
2. Factually accurate and verifiable
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

There is only one cn tag, well two but about the same issue, the definition of spam, and a google search of "definition of spam" turns up mostly links to this article... Maybe someone else can find a reference. 199.125.109.79 (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)