Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Danny Deever/1

Danny Deever

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Spinixster Thanks for flagging this. I'm recovering from covid at the moment so haven't much spare capacity, but I'll try and have a look over it in the next week or two and see what can be salvaged. Standards have definitely moved on a bit in the last 17 years! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray, I can also take a look towards cleanup over the next few days if it would be of assistance? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891 that would be very kind, thankyou! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I just added a few citations and removed an uncited claim. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've overhauled the background (though it might need more tweaking). Working on digging up some suitable sourcing for critical commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added a little more, and removed an uncited paragraph which does seem to have been editorial. The rest seems to be both sufficient and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep, the work by Gray et al. looks good to me. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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.