Talk:Dan Caine/GA1

GA review

Procedural fail on criterion five of the good article criteria. E_F⁵ 22:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 16:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original review, disregard.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this shortly per my reply at the Wikimedia discord. :) E_F⁵ 20:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

venture capitalist needs linked at first mention in lede.
The infobox image needs alt texts per MOS:ALT.
~~Change the {{use dmy dates}} template to a {{use mdy dates}} as the subject of the article is American.~~
They married at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Harrisonburg, Virginia, in January 1993 I'd suggest changing this to "The couple married in January 1993 at the Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Harrisonburg, Virginia.", although this isn't a part of the GA criteria and isn't required.
I see 113th Maintenance Group in the infobox, but not in prose. Since it's not in the prose anywhere, it should have a citation, but please do correct me if there's something I've missed.
~~Caine was born on 10 August 1968 Assuming the "use mdy dates" template doesn't cover this, the "10 August 1968" part needs changed to "August 10, 1968".~~

Sourcing and everything else checks out, so that's really all I've got. Pinging @ElijahPepe: for the fixes, good job so far. E_F⁵ 19:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening following talk page discussion, I'll see if I can conjure up more comments within a few hours. E_F⁵ 18:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
No issues. This was cleared up prior to the re-review.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
All sources are reliable and cited properly. Earwig finds a 31% similarity percentage with The Hill, although a lot of it is just because the name of his rank is long.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
@Barkeep49: (pinging for re-open confirmation) noted that the article was almost immediately put under an expansion within a few edits of the GA icon being added, which obviously creates comprehensiveness issues. I'll take a look in a little bit to see if there's anything significant missing; for now I won't fail or pass it on 3a. I'll let you know if I find major things needed added, or whether it adequately covers everything. I do have some preliminary concerns about information that could be added, especially since he's likely to be heavily reported on.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No issues here, the tone isn't weasely or otherwise stands out as promotional.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
A significant issue with the article is that the subject was just recently put at a very high position in the United States government; we've seen 93,000 pageviews and several reverts within a short timeframe, far too high for me to be comfortable passing on. I'm going to have a chat with some people who are regulars at GAN to see how much edit warring is "too much" and whether this will remain stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Resolved above.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to say that my review above was subpar at best, so I do apologize for that. The review's a bit of a mess, so I've gone ahead and collapsed my original review. E_F⁵ 19:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After further contemplation, I've come to the conclusion that this article most likely will not be stable enough to pass, so I will unfortunately have to procedural fail on criteria 5 of WP:GACR, which states that it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. While general additions to the article don't destabilize it, the talk page and recent protection tells me that the article fails this general stability criteria. While the article is definitely there in terms of prose (I would strongly suggest re-nominating once the article becomes more stable), I believe that the article fails point 5. I've never procedurally failed a GAN before, so please do leave me a talk page message (anyone, not just the nominator) if the fail is improper or overall if I am mistaken about something. E_F⁵ 22:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.