Talk:Gertrude Barrows Bennett/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Unfortunately, i don't think this article meets the GA criteria anymore, as standards have changed a lot since it was promoted.

There are multiple uncited paragrpahs,
only 6 references,
The main source (scifipedia) no longer exists.
the lead is insufficent in length,
the coverage of her work is insufficient to be called "broad",
very little content about her critical reception or influence.
Also many MoS fixes needed.

Unless someone plans to do major improvments ASAP, i think it should be delisted.Yob Mod 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just received the message about this. As the author of the article, I disagree with this assessment. All of the information in the article is cited. Please state what information is uncited, because everything in the article has a citation. In addition, while scifipedia may no longer exist, that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid reference at the time. And while there are only six references, different information from those references are cited numerous times.

As for the lead, it is appropriate to the length of the article. A lead is supposed to summarize an entire article, and that is what happens here. This is an article about a rather obscure author, so naturally it can't be as detailed as an article about Shakespeare. As such, the content about her critical reception and influence is as detailed as it can be. Finally, if there are MoS issues, please list them and I will fix them. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm still not sure what uncited information you refer to, I went back and added more citations and information. I did see one unreferenced statement that another editor inserted a few weeks back; I rewrote this and inserted a reference. I also added a little more about her critical impact. As I previously stated, this is an article about an obscure author, so there are limits to how much more information I can provide. But for such an obscure subject, this article is well researched, fully cited, and meets all the good article standards. If there are any specific issues you have, please list them and I will address them. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything cited to Scifipedia is no longer cited, as the site no longer exists (maybe there is an archive?). ISFDB is user-written, so is it a reliable source - i think generally notYob Mod 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, just because Scifipedia is no longer available online doesn't make it no longer a valid reference. Please look at Wikipedia guidelines on this. It is similar to the case of citing a book which can no longer be found--losing the book doesn't mean the info you accessed is no longer valid. But because you are so concerned about this, I will replace that citation with another one. As for ISFDB, if that is a concern I can also change it (it was only being used as a reference for the names of her short stories and, as such is easily replaced). I'll fix these items over the next day or two.

May I assume those are the only issues you have at this point, since you didn't raise any other specific problem?--SouthernNights (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the Scifipedia and ISFDB citations and also added more info, including an expansion of the influence section. I also corrected some style problems other editors had inserted into the article over the last year.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]