Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Key/1

John Key

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

Result: Kept Agreement that this now meets the criteria AIRcorn (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This article was listed as a Good Article nearly eight years ago. Not only has the rigour of the review process has improved since 2010, concerns about the quality were raised even at the time, prompting a prompt and unsatisfactory review in September 2010. I believe this article as it stands fails several of the criteria that are necessary to be a GA. I am not concerned about the quality of expression or format of the article; I have been one of a few contributors who have extensively overhauled the layout of the article over the past two years. However, I acknowledge that the article is not a comprehensive overview of the topic – in particular it fixates on Key's scandals/mishaps, and a casual reader is left with little impression of his policies, decision or events during his premiership; many sections also require expansion that is beyond my ability. Therefore I request that the article is de-listed in order to prompt contributions and expansion. --Hazhk (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is your link to the diff correct? It doesn't seem to indicate an unsatisfactory review. Am I correct in assuming you think this fails the focus criteria? If that is the case I should be able to fix those issues relatively easily. As to expansion, could you be a little bit clearer on what areas you think need expansion. Being broad does not mean comprehensive (see note 6 at WP:GACR) and nothing is jumping out at me at the moment, except maybe the Post-premiership section. There are some weaselly worded sentences, but that can also be fixed relatively easily. Let me know of any other issues as they relate to the criteria and I may be able to fix those too. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have now corrected the link to the first review (for reference, this review). As to the areas of expansion: I would especially highlight the sections detailing his early political career and post-premiership. I also think that the entire overview of his tenure as Prime Minister is detached from the actions and policies of his government – the vast bulk of the information was incorporated from a 'Controversies' section (compare the current revision with the article as it stood in July 2016) and, as such, it details various gaffes and controversies, with little coverage of political events or decisions. In general, I do not feel that the level of detail in the article is satisfactory for a GA. --Hazhk (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

By way of comparison, note the depth of detail and breadth of coverage on David Cameron's article (a class-B article).--Hazhk (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

When the peer review was conducted it looked like this. Also note that Good Articles don't have to be great articles, just meet some simple criteria. I will keep working on it as I have time (see you are to which is good). AIRcorn (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it is not too bad at the moment. It could definitely be expanded, but nothing is obviously missing. Saying that the above critiques are fair and I feel this has a long way to go to be considered a very good article. I think it scrapes by as a "Good" article though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hazhk What are your feelings on this article now. I feel this is all the input we will get. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the changes made have been satisfactory. I feel that it should remain as it is. I would close the review.--Hazhk (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)