Talk:Kash Patel/GA3

GA review

Failed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 13 October 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) 05:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently failed, by User:Czarking0, after a combative sequence of interactions within the usual review process. The fail closure indicated problems with Good Article criteria 1a ("several sentences that are too verbose"), 1b (problematic overall section structure; WP:PEACOCK), 3a (underdeveloped Nunes section), 3b (undue weight to picayune details "Though this is the least concern I have"), and 4 (Many WP:VOICE concerns and relative weighting). Instead of addressing these problems the nominator immediately renominated without change, writing in the edit summary "Previous review did not entirely conform to GAN expectations and was unclear".

I note re 1a: "The New York Times later reported that he was the primary author of the Nunes memo,[9] which alleged that Federal Bureau of Investigation officials abused their authority in the FBI investigation into links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials, seeking a warrant for Carter Page, an advisor to Donald Trump, and relying on claims made by Christopher Steele, a British intelligence officer who was allegedly paid by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign.[14]" As clear an example of a run-on sentence as I can remember seeing. So that issue is still present; note also that this is an example, not the only instance of the problem. So it will not be fixed merely by rephrasing this single sentence.

Re 1b: The biggest issue re section structure, that there is a section titled "Career" that does not actually cover his career, is still present. Re the "words to watch" issue for 1b: the article still has at least one valid cleanup tag that has not been addressed, on this exact issue: "had been noted[by whom?]". This is also a WP:VOICE problem (4).

And I agree that the article bogs down in overdetailed blow-by-blow descriptions of his early career (3b) and that the crucial Nunes memo material is brief and vague (3a).

Thus, I think this can be closed as a quickfail, under WP:QF #5: "It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article".

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.