Talk:Inter-Allied Socialist Conferences of World War I/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Bellerophon5685

I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This article suffers from a number of grammatical and spelling errors, and needs a thorough proofreading. Even at a first glance, I see sentences that don't end with full-stops, a random colon in the middle of a sentence, run-on sentences, unencyclopedic prose ("ditto"), etc. Unfortunately, this issue cannot be fully addressed until issues with criterion 3a are resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This lead section is a single sentence, and does not fully summarize all sections of the article. The section headings have abbreviations and are non-standard. There are also non-standard list formats, a violation of WP:CLAIM, etc.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Although there are copyediting errors in the references, the article does contain a reference section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Nearly all of the references are to primary sources attached to the conferences themselves, and are therefore not independent, reliable sources. All quotations, statistics, and potentially contested statement will need to be referenced to independent, reliable sources. Also, there is a direct quote which seems to be unsourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is no information tying the conferences together. While there is a lot of information from the minutes of each individual meeting, there is almost no information about these conferences in general, or what role they played in the war, or what preceded from them, or what resulted from such meetings in general. There is also a lack of information on critics of such meetings, or reactions from outside groups.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sometimes an individual section will go into unnecessary detail listing each non-notable person who sat on a specific commission, etc. In general, the minutes of each conference are given undue weight, compared to other possible aspects of socialist conferences that could be mentioned.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I can't tell. There is no clear bias, but without reliable, independent sources commenting on the meetings and their impacts, I can't tell.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Not applicable
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No known images that would be useful
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

This article is about an important topic, but it suffers from multiple shortcomings. I will put this nomination on hold for seven days. If all issues are addressed in that time, the nomination will pass; otherwise it will fail. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed the nomination due to lack of activity. If you resolve the above issues in the future, feel free to renominate this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]