Talk:Ted Williams/GA1
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Omnis Scientia (talk · contribs) 10:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 19:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry you have to wait this long for someone to look at the article. As it stands, it has a significant number of unsourced claims, especially under the "Military service" and "Post-retirement". Good article nominations need to be fully sourced prior to nomination, and it still needs work before it can meet the good article criteria. I'm going to close the nomination as unsuccessful. In general, it's good practice to go over the entire article before nominating to ensure there are no problems that might be raised later on. I hope to see this back at GAN in the future once the sourcing problem has been resolved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, this is quite unusual for me. I would have that, like previous GA nominations I've forwarded, there would be a step-by-step go-through of the article, with suggestions to improve the article further and THEN have in promoted. That is how it tends to happen, at least in my experience. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- I understand that you must be frustrated by this. But the expectation is that you already believe the article meets all six of the good article criteria before you nominate. The reviewer then lists any minor areas where it doesn't if you missed them. WP:GAFAIL lists the reasons a nomination can automatically be failed. This one misses the minimum requirements for a nomination in that "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" and "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not so much frustrated as I am confused since this hasn't been my experience with articles being promoted to FA or GA. Then again, it has been a lot of months and the article has been heavily edited since I did a ton to clean it up so... I'll have to try again after a bit more editing. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I understand that you must be frustrated by this. But the expectation is that you already believe the article meets all six of the good article criteria before you nominate. The reviewer then lists any minor areas where it doesn't if you missed them. WP:GAFAIL lists the reasons a nomination can automatically be failed. This one misses the minimum requirements for a nomination in that "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" and "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
If it helps, I agree that the large uncited sections closer to the end are a pretty big deal, but will keep my eye on this article. Once it's in a better spot you might see me pick up the review. Something specific I noted just off the top - it's a little weird having this: When Pumpsie Green became the first black player on the Red Sox—the last major league team to integrate—in 1959, Williams openly welcomed Green. sitting all by its lonesome in a one-sentence paragraph. -- Reconrabbit 01:16, 1 August 2025 (UTC)