Talk:Party line (telephony)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J. Johnson (talk · contribs) 21:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article. While I am not currently interested in taking this through an entire GA review, I would like to mention some points that certainly require addressing, mainly regarding citations.

• I noticed several instances where a telephone company is cited as the author of a newspaper article. While the telephone company is likely the source of particular information, unless the company (or someone representing it) actually wrote the story, and the company is listed on the story's by-line as the author, then it is not the author. If no author is given, then leave it off.
• A similar problem in the use of |publisher=. E.g., The Vancouver Sun is a publication (specifically, a newspaper), but the publisher is Pacific Newspaper Group, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.
• I see a naked url has slipped in (fn 1); these are never sufficient for purposes of citation.
• There are several passages which are not sourced. Perhaps more searching can find a source. Otherwise it might be better to remove such passages.

Give me a yell if you have questions, esp. regarding citations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

J. Johnson, according to the GA instructions, Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. So if you aren't interested in doing an entire GA review, please don't open a review in order to make partial comments, since from that moment it becomes your review and it's likely that no one else will even look at it for weeks if not a month or more. That leaves two options if you want to comment on a nomination: posting comments on the article talk page before the review is opened, or waiting until the review is started by someone else and adding comments to it at that point.

That said, occono, the nominator, hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months, and it seems unlikely that we'll get a response to the review here. So I don't see any point in continuing the review at this time. Given that the sourcing of the article doesn't meet GA standards, which is a major criterion, I'm going to place the article on hold for seven days. If the sourcing issues are not addressed in that time, the nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can find better sources in 7 days, I just wanted to nominate this article I found which seemed unloved but well-researched and written. I'll fix the simple stuff like the improper footnoting style but I don't think I can improve the quality of the actual sources. I'll give researching it a try though. I'm not really dedicated to wikipedia editing anymore. --occono (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I had not realized that clicking on that button that opened the review was going to automatically start engines and put my name on the marquee. Well, I could get more involved in this (though reluctantly). But seeing as how the article isn't really ready I think it should be closed (as failed?), and then it can be re-nominated when it is ready. My comments (above) could moved to the talk page, though I am hesitant to do that myself lest I mess up the GA history.

Occono: let's not sweat the seven days. I think the article has promise, but surely there is no need to rush it through. I might be able to with some sources. We can continue this on the talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is mainly a random collection of factoids about party lines, picked from newspaper articles, and not a coherent article. The few technical details mentioned are mostly improperly presented, even wrong given the simplifications. Kbrose (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I got a somewhat similar impression, especially regarding the newspaper sources, but it's not entirely incoherent nor incomplete. I think it's salvageable. Just not GA yet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

Unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time. Per comments by three (3) different editors reviewing the article, above. Closing per lack of responsiveness by nominator since 30 September 2015. No big deal. :) But please, feel free to renominate at any point in time in the future, once above recommendations have been addressed or good faith attempts have been made to do so. — Cirt (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)