Talk:Princess Si of Anding/GA2
GA review
{{Good article tools}}
Nominator: {{User|AJMgirl}} 17:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reverosie (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
{{atopg
| status =
| result = Failed. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 21:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
}}
Hello! As promised, I'll be your GA reviewer again. I see that the article is much improved! I'm anticipating that it will pass this time around 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 17:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
= The immediate re-nomination =
An article can usually not be re-nominated less than 24 hours after it fails. Another editor said this to me:
{{blockquote|Hi Reverosie, I see the article has been nominated again less than a day after quickfail - this is usually not enough of a refractory period for improvement or to reflect on the previous review comments. A quick glance at the current state of the article, it still has poor tone and now has unreferenced parts and unclear references. I haven't looked at the content enough to tell if the historicity is clearer, but given a new section called "verified facts" has been added, I get the impression that little thought has been given to improving the presentation of information throughout the article with this as a backdoor 'fix'. Feel free to copy these comments over to the new review, but I would advise asking the nominator to seriously go over the article, with an eye on MOS if needed, and wait at least a week before re-nominating.}}
I agree with what this editor said; the article should go through far more editing and re-structuring before it is nominated again. Here are some things that must be done:
1. More in-line citations are needed, especially in the new section regarding Princess Si's murder. In that section, in-line citations almost always only show up at the end of each paragraph instead of throughout.
2. The verified historical facts should be first, not last in the section about Princess Si's murder.
3. NPOV (Neutral point of view) needs to be accounted for throughout the article. For example, the word "tragically" breaks NPOV.
4. Various formatting fixes need to occur. There should be a space between in-line citations and the next word after them (The "Brief life" section, which should be renamed to "Life", has this issue many times). There should also be a space between a comma and the word after it (They should look like this, not like this,which is wrong).
5. The lead needs to be longer and speak about the whole article, not just some of it.
For these reasons, I will have to quick fail you again. I would strongly advise against nominating the article again until these problems have been resolved, and more work has been done. It should not be nominated again in less than a week. 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)