Talk:Darren Moore/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: EchetusXe (talk · contribs) 01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Velthorian (talk · contribs) 07:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 23, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Not clear

2. Verifiable?:

Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: No

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?:

Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Velthorion (Alarm!) 00:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velthorian - are we looking at the same article? Where are the maintenance templates you are referring too? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski I was reviewing for first time, so I didn't know about the template.Velthorion (Alarm!) 11:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Velthorion: that's not what Lee Vilenski was referring to. He was referring to the fact that you quick failed the article (i.e. failed it without giving the nominator time to respond) apparently citing quick fail criteria 1 ("It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria") and quick fail criteria 3 ("It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid ...") Neither of which seem to apply.

Therefore, the correct course of action on your part would be to highlight why you think the well written and broad in coverage criteria are not met at this time (in some level of detail; ie. What additional coverage is required and what bits need rewritting) and then you should place the review on hold to allow the nominator to make the necessary adjustments. My advice is that you un-fail this nomination, otherwise this review will probably be considered null and void. Unless of course you can explain why it should be quickfailed at this time. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the page after reviewing, as I didn't know that we had to make this page first. I have reviewed the article properly. Velthorion (Alarm!) 12:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, we'd expect an actual explaination as to how this doesn't meet those criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Velthorion (Alarm!) 15:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have brought it up at your talk page, but I think it might be better here as there are already other users here too- Velthorion, I see that you have begun the review of UNICEF club as well, and also nominated Buddhism despite never having edited it (and didn't ask for permission at it's talk page). Are you sure that you have read and understood the instructions well? I'm sure someone could provide resources to help you understand it, if you haven't. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]