Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Earwax/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not satisfy GA

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also only covers humans (except on sentence about whales). AFAIK, many other animals produce earwax, so this either needs renaming, like some body part articles, or it fails broadness. There is also nothing on the chemical composition, which i'm sure i once read a paper about.Along with many single paragraph sections and the inadequate lead, i agree that it should be delisted. Using Scpous i found 92 papers on human earwax, three about the composition: i think none are cited in the article.Yob Mod 07:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Further reading" section which recommends two sources is odd. If the two articles are as good or comprehensive as is suggested, it seems sensible to just use them as cited sources to further develop the article. The "History" section is somewhat weak, listing just a couple of trivia items. It does fail to meet WP:LEAD, in failing to concisely cover key points from the entire article in the lead. I agree the article should be delisted so it can be worked on and, perhaps, renominated after substantial improvement. –Whitehorse1 03:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above delist comments, all the points raised by the GAR nominator are valid. Also, there are referencing problems throughout the article that are unaddressed, including {{fact}} tags, as well as other unsourced bits. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]