3. Broad in coverage?: To soon to tell. E.g., this article is about a book published a few weeks ago. So
WP:Recentism and the rush of current events are at play as to whether or not the book itself will be
WP:NOTEWORTHY as events surrounding Trump unfold.
4. Neutral point of view?: Problematic. The article topic itself is POV. What will happen remains to be seen. Also, are there critical reviews of the book?
5. Stable?: No (although the spate of changes are not actually the result of edit warring – they are more related to efforts to embellish the article with off-topic items).
6. Images?: Yes
When these issues are addressed, the article can be
renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it
reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— –
S. Rich (
talk) 01:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
PS – As I have made changes to the article, I will not object if my GA fail is reverted by another reviewer. I think the changes I made were all within sound editing guidance and not substantial. –
S. Rich (
talk) 01:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Also, I am not posting the FailedGA template while my review is "pending". –
S. Rich (
talk) 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Srich32977:Hey there, it's totally okay, please close this review as failed. I've reflected on this for a good deal of time during a break. It'll give me more time to improve it further. Thank you !
Sagecandor (
talk) 17:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Okay. Final word on the particular items: each "no go" will work itself out as time passes. –
S. Rich (
talk) 18:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Srich32977:Thank you, and totally no problems with the review and the close.
Sagecandor (
talk) 19:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: :User appears to display transparent agenda, lamenting efforts to improve articles on Wikipedia that might have some criticism of
Donald Trump. See case studies:
[1][2][3].
Sagecandor (
talk) 14:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)reply