Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Andrea Dworkin/1

Andrea Dworkin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Concerns about the lead have been addressed. No other concerns were raised. Article retains Good Article status. 10:58, 17 March 2016 Kaldari

I believe this article does not fall under good article criteria as it strays from WP:LEAD, one of the manual of styles required in good articles. It states that a lead section serves as "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". This particular article is relatively large, but its lead section hardly summarises any of its contents, with only a few broad points and facts, such as a couple of books written by the article's subject, as well as some of the movements she followed. I believe once the lead section is fleshed out with more information from the article, the article will fall under good article criteria. BlookerG ^talk 01:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if the lead discussed her work on rape and violence against women, not just pornography. Dworkin was one of the first people to discuss rape openly as a feminist issue, as previously it was a taboo subject even for feminists. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely the lead could use some fleshing out, but it strikes me as rather counter-intuitive to open a GA reassessment on that basis alone. I'd recommend you open a thread about this on the talk page; you're much more likely to gain consensus and attention to the issue there than here. Or just WP:BEBOLD and add the content in yourself; I very much doubt anyone would oppose it in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I expanded the lead. But using that alone and in a rush (not waiting for response) for a reassessment of GA status increases other editors' workloads, because then we have to deal with both the lead and the reassessment, and is not helpful. Tagging the article was a good idea and editing yourself, since that would not have required research, would have been just as good an idea, perhaps depending on how much of your time was available. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@BlookerG: This has been pending for several months. Any additional thoughts or can we close this? Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't got much more to add to this, so I think it would be best to close it. Sorry about inactivity. BlookerG ^talk 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)