Talk:Publishers Clearing House/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Corporate! Its been a while since I reviewed one of yours! ★★King•Retrolord★★ 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- So it's "King" Retrolord now is it? :-D
- I think the last GA nomination of mine you handled was about six months ago. At that time, I was pretty focused on working with companies with shiny, polished reputations, but I'll have a few GAs coming down the pipe on companies with more of a mixed reputation, so it'll be interesting to see how that works out. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just FYI for talk page watchers, I made some very slight changes based on Retro's feedback here. CorporateM (Talk) 02:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- As per RetroLord's permission, I will continue the GA review for this article. RetroLord is on a long Wiki-break now and wont be back soon.
- CorporateM, the article is fleshed out enough for GA, but its best to fix up what R-Lord told you to do on his talk page! Prabash.Akmeemana 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing[edit]
User:Retrolord's talk page is not an official venue for GAN reviews. Any discussion pertaining to the GA review of this article must be made here. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hey guys. My suggestion is that we circle back to this in a few days. I think it could use just a bit more time to "settle" and see if User:Randomyesnomaybe or User:Bilbobag make any immediate changes. This should also give us some time for the tension to pass in that whole situation with Retro, so we can come with fresh minds and eyes focused on delivering a great GA article to our readers. After 20,000+ words of discussion on this page over the last couple months, I wouldn't mind a short break from this particular page either, or a few days to focus on History of public relations. I was probably a bit prompt in nominating it so quickly, but was expecting the usual 3-month or so wait. Lets give it a few days and come back fresh. CorporateM (Talk) 07:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I emailed the full text of both articles to you through the "Email this user" feature. If you need anything else, let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome. Thanks for giving us a bit of a break on this one User:Prabash.A. The article does appear stable and I've had a chance to get the PR history article ready for a GAN, as well as catch up on some other client work. I'm ready whenever you have a chance to circle back. I had made some tweaks based on Retro's initial feedback right after he posted it, but let me know if you feel his feedback was not implemented, etc. If no one objects, I'll collapse these strings in a bit so we can start fresh. Not sure what that was all about, as Retro has done prior GA reviews and was one of the more thorough reviewers. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- CorporateM I'm on right now, yes I will assess the article for GA, it looks like a clear pass now since you guys have done just about everything Retrolord pointed out, I will begin the assessment soon. Prabash.Akmeemana 02:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome. Thanks for giving us a bit of a break on this one User:Prabash.A. The article does appear stable and I've had a chance to get the PR history article ready for a GAN, as well as catch up on some other client work. I'm ready whenever you have a chance to circle back. I had made some tweaks based on Retro's initial feedback right after he posted it, but let me know if you feel his feedback was not implemented, etc. If no one objects, I'll collapse these strings in a bit so we can start fresh. Not sure what that was all about, as Retro has done prior GA reviews and was one of the more thorough reviewers. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Assessment[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
Note to other Reviewers[edit]
- If you think the article should be reassessed, please feel free to do so. Prabash.Akmeemana 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- In view of comments already raised by anther editor I'm going to reassess it. Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2013
- I still have a concern about the header "Lawsuits", as I mention above. These do not appear to be lawsuits brought against the company. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- This particular review is now (effectively) Closed as of 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC), when the nomination was passed by Prabash.A. I've already opened a new review at Talk:Publishers Clearing House/GA2. I'd suggest that you copy it to that review and it will be considered in my review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I still have a concern about the header "Lawsuits", as I mention above. These do not appear to be lawsuits brought against the company. Randomyesnomaybe (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)