Talk:Iowa/GA1
GA Review
{{Good article tools}}
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 00:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
One of my favorite states; looking forward to reading the article! — Wug·a·po·des 00:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- A first comment while skimming the article, I feel like the lead may not be an adequate summary. There seem to be sections on "law and government" and "culture" which I don't think is covered in the lead. Also there seems to be an outstanding expansion tag at Iowa#Arts which will need resolved before I can pass the article. — Wug·a·po·des 00:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
=Thoughts from an independent reviewer=
:: Not easy for a second reviewer to know what you may feel uncomfortable about, but you're probably right that the lead doesn't fully summarize the article.
:: More serious are the unaddressed 'citation needed' tags (I've added a few more), and the quantity of uncited material towards the end of the article.
:: I can't see the point of lists in 'Colleges and universities', given there's already a freestanding list of those, so I'd suggest swift removal, and citation of the small remaining text in that section.
:: 'Geology and terrain' needs more citations.
:: 'Climate' is poorly cited.
:: 'Trade and Indian removal, 1814–1832' is uncited.
:: 'Agricultural expansion, 1865–1930' is uncited.
:: 'Political speech' is uncited.
:: 'Arts' as you note is too short, and needs citing.
:: 'Sports' and its several subsections are almost wholly uncited.
:: 'Iowans' is completely uncited. The single-entry 'Further reading' might be better used actually citing some of these 'Iowans', and then that section can be removed.
:: The 'External links' look a bit scrappy and numerous; again, it would be best to use most of them to cite the text, and remove them from the section.
:: Citations like 153, 158 are missing most of their parameters.
When those issues are addressed the article may not be perfect but I think it will be covering "the main points" for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
:FWIW it looks like {{u|Helloimahumanbeing}} is making edits to the article, maybe to address these points, but I wanted to ping them to make sure they were aware of the comments and to encourage them to post something on this page to show if the points are/are not being addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 21:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
::Glad to see Helloimahumanbeing is back! I'm willing to start up the review if you'll be around and editing. — Wug·a·po·des 21:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|Wugapodes}} I won't be able to make any edits for a while so I'd put the review on hold. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{re|Helloimahumanbeing}} Do you have a rough idea of how long "a while" would be? It may be easier to renominate the article when you do have time. — Wug·a·po·des 20:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{Reply to|Wugapodes}} Three weeks at most Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::That's not too bad; I'll get to work on this and when you have time we can discuss more. — Wug·a·po·des 19:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Wugapodes, Helloimahumanbeing, it's been nearly six weeks, not three, and nothing has happened. I'd suggest closing the nomination, since this is clearly not a good time for it, and renominating later; this has been open for nearly four months. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::That's fair. I've closed the nomination as unsuccessful. — Wug·a·po·des 20:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)