Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 79
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| ← (Page 78) |  Good article reassessment (archive)
|
(Page 80) → |
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot of uncited text, including multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
There is uncited text throughout the article, and the reception section is too long and disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oof aye, this article has problems, definitely major enough that I don't think they can be easily fixed. The reception section, aside from being too long, consists largely of very confusing and contextless block quotes. The "themes" section might as well be written off as original research, as it is almost entirely cited to the comic itself, so it appears as though this is the editors own interpretations of the comic. It is severely lacking in citations to reliable, secondary sources, citing only a hand full. And as the nominator said, a lot of the text is entirely uncited, in sections you'd expect to be fully sourced. This is definitely a delist from me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of the "unsourced" bits aren't really unsourced. Here's an example:
Cam Smith, Ray McCarthy, and Josef Rubinstein completed the ink work for "Anarky: Tomorrow Belongs to Us", "Anarky", and "Metamorphosis, respectively.
That might be false, but it's not unsourced - the front of each issue will say who inked it. If there are other parts that are a problem, can you point them out specifically? I've only just skimmed it, but it's things like that that I found, so they're fine. - I removed the disorganized part of the reception section and it already looks way better. I haven't followed up with any of those sources though, nor have I checked to see if there are major omissions in that section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I have added cn tags to the article. If the article is citing the comic as its source, it will need an inline citation (with the exception of the comic's plot summary). I agree with Grnchst above that the Themes section should not be citing the comic, but rather what secondary sources have said about the comic. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delist for breadth. Biggest issue for me is the Themes section based on primary sources. It's synthetic/original research to say that those primary source mentions constitute a theme. We need secondary source analysis to warrant those conclusions. czar 22:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sources that could be useful to fix up some of this:
- Klaehn, Jeffery (1 July 2020). "An interview with Alan Grant". Studies in Comics. 11 (1): 193–204. doi:10.1386/jem_00021_7.
- Berns, Fernando Gabriel Pagnoni; Veteri, Eduardo (2023). "Batman, Defender of the Status Quo?: On Anarchy and Anarky (Guest Villain: The Ventriloquist)". In Favaro, Marco; Martin, Justin F. (eds.). Batman's villains and villainesses: multidisciplinary perspectives on Arkham's souls. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 1-66693-083-0.
asilvering (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Asilvering do you intend to continue working on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Asilvering do you intend to continue working on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Speedy kept, nominator didn't leave a proper rationale as you're supposed to. λ NegativeMP1 15:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
goes in unnecassary detail, skewed more towards the games favor, seems unnecessary for a article on just one level just for its humorous content, not well written NoKNoC (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
This is an inactionable GAR, so you are going to need to elaborate more than that.
- Can you provide examples where the article goes into unnecessary detail?
- Can you provide examples of how the article skews towards the game (and, frankly, what that even means)?
- Can you provide the GA criteria that "seeming unnecessary" fails?
- Can you provide examples of issues with the quality of the writing?
As it is, it just seems to me like you don't like the article, and are in turn coming up with reasons to have it deleted that are not relevant to any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I did some minor cleanup and did not notice anything unusual. The article still meets the WP:GA? criteria after 4 years of its first GA nomination. Looking at the article history, its talk page, and the recent AfD, this rather seems to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:GAR states: "
Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
" The nominator did not specify or provide examples, so I'd recommend to speedily close this if the nominator does not respond. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Procedural GAR following merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
This 2007 listing that was last reviewed in the 2009 sweeps fails GACR 2a, having multiple unsourced areas and a largely unsourced crufty "pop culture" section. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I got rid of the pop culture section. Not only was it unsourced but there were hardly any items that were notable on their own. The one thing I kept was a note on the mausoleum pieces being used in an exhibit (which is also unsourced). I will try to look at finding where the unsourced info came from but I don't know if I can find relevant information. Reconrabbit 04:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I trimmed the lead slightly, but I don't see any need to reduce it any further. It adequately covers her junior career, her singles career, her mixed doubles success, her injuries and her retirement (and future career, should that receive coverage). Also, the reason this article gives
more weight to earlier years of her career than later years
is because those are the most notable parts of her career, when she was a junior champion and rising star on the WTA tour. Iffy★Chat -- 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Lots of uncited text throughout the article. The end of the "After World War II" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs which should be merged together. The "Demographics" section only lists the racial composition of the city and does not include other demographic information like income, religion and age, nor does it talk about historic patterns in demographics. Some information from "County, state, and federal government" is sourced to 2008 information and needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)