Talk:Saskatchewan Marshals Service/GA1

GA review

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: Ominae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 15:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Template

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. 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):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Written comments

Comprehensiveness and prose

• Two big problems that I'd like to see addressed before going any further with this review. First, the article still uses the present tense to refer to late 2025 (i.e., more than four months ago), and thus the information is out of date; it either launched or got delayed (second one seems accurate). Second, there are significant WP:PROSELINE issues, as well as multiple paragraphs and sections which are single sentences. As such, the quality of the text is far from "reasonably well written". Recognizing that you have not had much experience working on GAs, I'm going to forego a quick fail and wait for a week to see if there can be some work towards addressing these issues before continuing with a more detailed review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Hi Ominae, this has sat for a little under a week, with no work towards addressing concerns. If I don't see any movement within a couple days, I will have to fail this nomination. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Verdict

• Due to inactivity from the nominator, I am failing this nomination. Please address the concerns above before renominating. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

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.