Talk:2014 Peshawar school massacre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great article. Will start the review soon. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pre Review Notes

I do my review with a main review, then a prose+source review to accompany it. Here is a good example: Talk:Global financial system/GA1

I'm already concerned with Talk:2014 Peshawar school attack#GA nomination as the person who stated this comment is completely right. An article must be stable to become a GA article. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you as a reviewer. Thanks for quick response. UBS talk 20:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First the "Reaction" section was formatted in bullets; now it becomes a table. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were different categories in that section which needed to arrange in a format format. Table looks better than bullets. UBS talk 04:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer commentary: If the reaction section keeps getting large why not create another article for reaction. For example Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has a separate article for reactions. As there were many reactions from governments around the world editors decided to copy the list to another article and turn existing list to a prose. If not this article will keep getting bigger and bigger making it difficult to read. Reactions section is the largest section in this article.--Chamith (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm going to create it. --Saqib (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As another Non-reviewer comment, surely it's much too early for this article to be considered sufficiently stable to meet the GA criteria? Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment I support Nick-D and MrWooHoo on the stability criteria. I can't see how this could be considered stable enough in the near future. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment I agree. The article is still unstable till the investigation is complete et al. Hence, it is too early to try and push for a GA. I think maybe a few months would let it cool down before it can hit GA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2014 (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.	See prose review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead should be expanded a bit, layout is good, no buzz words, 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.	See source review.
	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).	All sources are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information in article is cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It seems to cover all aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No in-depth unnecessary detail that I've seen.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is very recent, and there have been plenty of vandalism, etc. Please see this page for a more in-depth wording/definition.
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.	File:Peshawar_child_attack_Quran_reading.jpg and File:Girls-mourn-peshawar-ap.jpg are both non-free. Please either change the rationales or delete them from the article because it is copyrighted.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relavant images w/ suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	From other users and myself, this article is too unstable and too recent to become a GA. Try renominating in about 2-3 months. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]