# Talk:Rasan (organization)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rasan (organization)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BasedMises (talk · contribs) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Many sources, good amount of detail. 2 shortcomings:
1. 2 citation needed sections
2. Occasionally a bit odd in its writing (eg. 2018-Current, which I would recommend you replace with 2018-present)
Overall, good article materiel, and I think, past the minor improvements, it will likely become a good article. I will consult the criteria over the next 3 days. If those improvements are made, the decision is obvious.

Thanks for taking it on @BasedMises:! One issue, the link to the Change.org petition cannot go through as a reference due to the block Wikipedia placed on the website. I will be trying to find source for the other one. And sorry for these mistakes, English is not my first language.--Épine (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe use an official tweet like this:
https://twitter.com/zhiarofficial/status/1370006724892110849
Otherwise, it is good, once Citation Neededs are gone.

@BasedMises: Hey, it would really help the rest of the editors involved in the GA process if you could explicitly check this article against the Good Article criteria before promoting it; if you then decide that it meets those criteria, then the steps you can follow to complete the process and promote the article can be found at the Good Article instructions for a passed review. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bryanrutherford0: I did so. That is why I asked for fixes of the "citation needed" sections. F. A. Hayek 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
It would really help the rest of the editors involved in the GA process if you could explicitly check this article against the Good Article criteria before promoting it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Bryanrutherford0, this comment is so unhelpful and just creates confusion. Épine (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry you found my comment "unhelpful". I included links to the policies I was referring to, but if the result was still "confusion", then I'll be more explicit: the Good Article instructions require an "in-depth review ... to determine whether a nomination passes all of the good article criteria" and that the reviewer "provide a review on the review page justifying that decision". It would really help the rest of the editors involved in the GA process if the reviewer would explicitly check this article against the Good Article criteria, indicating for each criterion why they judged that it did or did not satisfy the standard. Having "many sources" and a "good amount of detail" does not satisfy the Good Article Criteria, and an "in-depth review" probably needs to be longer than one sentence fragment and two bullet points. Explicitly reviewing the article against all of the Good Article criteria allows other editors to see the issues that were raised and what was done to address them, and it allows others to feel confident that the standards of the process are being upheld. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok.
1. (writing)
Although the writer's first language is not English it has no mistakes.
The opening summarizes the article in an excellent way. It also goes extremely in-depth on a niche topic. No glaring issues present.
2. (WP:NOR, verifiable)
The article has a wealth of reliable sources and has no immediate glaring issues (such as a "citation needed"). The article dutifully complies with NOR.
3. (broadness of coverage)
The article is extremely detailed and has a very large amount of detail. It does not seem unnecessarily niche or narrow in coverage. It covers all of the major tenets of Rasan's history and even has a section dedicated to activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. It is neutral. There are few viewpoints that really need to be represented. I would recommend that the nominator possibly make a "criticism" section.
5. No edit wars or anything like that. It is a fairly niche topic so it is unlikely to have any disputes in the future. It is currently stable.
6. It has a logo, a mural, and a petition. No copyright issues at all. Also quite like the IPA pronunciation in the sidebar (not sure if it counts as "media", but I assume it is easy to understand my claim)
Apologies, I did not understand what you meant by "explicitly". I think this is what you meant. Thank you for teaching me how to review GA-Nominees better, although you did seem quite tired of having to tell editors how to do this. --M. FriedmanMont Pelerin Society 23:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There are critisism but nothing official, such as in articles or anything which made news headlines. Only Facebook comments, which do not really qualify as a reliable source. I did try to be as neutral as possible, though.--Épine (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Épine and BasedMises: is this review ongoing? last edit to this page about a month and a half ago. Urve 08:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Urve, I have made all the requested changes to the page. BasedMises decided to pass it but it was reverted by Bryan. I appreciate if someone else can intervene as well. Épine (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Tagged as needing a second opinion at your request. Unforunately this is outside of my wheelhouse so I cannot take it up at the moment. Urve 10:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Per GAN instructions, only the original reviewer may pass or fail the article. Therefore, I've restored the pass. If he or anyone else disagrees that the article meets the GA criteria, Bryan Rutherford may open a WP:GAR. (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)