Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/2

Scotland

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

Result: Delist Givin the size, scope and number of issues outstanding I feel the best way forward is to delist and allow interested editors to address the concerns without the added pressure of a reassessment. I will add a few comments in this close regarding the identified issues and how they relate to the GA criteria. I would say page numbers in books are required for verifiable. Reviewers and readers should be given all the information they need to find where the information comes from and having a short statement sourced to a large book does not usually meet the spirit of criteria 2. I would also say that going over 78 KB prose is not a reason to cut information in an article this broad. The other points hold and there are a number of outstanding maintenance tags on the article that will need to be dealt with before renominating. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delist: This is a poorly maintained GA article that no longer meets the criteria. Many statements lack an inline citation, which might be acceptable if there was a "General References" section where readers could verify the information. There isn't, so it fails WP:V. In addition, a partial search of the references identified the following issues (see talk page):

• Potentially unreliable sources:

• Catholic.org: a WP:SPS. See this RSN discussion. Refs 2–5. Removed
• Orkneyjar.com: looks like a WP:SPS. Ref 44 Removed
• Kinneil Estate: a wordpress blog. Ref 45 Removed
• Rampant Scotland: looks like a WP:SPS. Refs 176 and 352.

• Partial citation without enough information to identify the source: 43 (Bryson), 121 (Evans), 122 (Sereny) Fixed this
• Many of the book citations are missing page numbers. This isn't necessarily an issue with the GA criteria, but in some cases these references are supporting direct quotes or controversial information, such as "the one internationally recognised Scottish landmark". How are readers supposed to verify that without a page number?
• Some citations do not support the content that they purport to, for example the citation in "Scottish Music" supports very little of the content in that section; the paragraph beginning with "Scotland's universities are complemented" is not supported by the ref.
• There is overcite in some cases, see cleanup tags on the article.
• The coverage in some areas is inadequate: for example, the section on Scottish literature does not mention any Gaelic writers, such as Nobel Prize nominee Sorley MacLean. Added content on MacLean. (Goodreg3 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC))
• Also, some areas are too detailed for WP:SUMMARY: an entire paragraph (!) about what titles British monarchs are allowed to use in Scotland. Fixed this, at least.
• "Other currently less popular candidates for the National Anthem of Scotland include Scotland the Brave, Highland Cathedral, Scots Wha Hae and A Man's A Man for A' That"—potentially controversial information without a citation. This has been fixed

I have sourced those "candidates" to a couple of newspaper articles and rewritten that sentence. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Direct quote with no source or citation: "largest electrified rail network outside London" Removed
• Some of the prose is not NPOV: for example, "unrivalled anywhere in Britain", "Thoughtful Scots pondered their declension, as the main social indicators such as poor health, bad housing, and long-term mass unemployment, pointed to terminal social and economic stagnation at best, or even a downward spiral. Service abroad on behalf of the Empire lost its allure to ambitious young people, who left Scotland permanently." Removed
• Another POV issue is the paragraph beginning: "During the Second World War", which omits the fact that German bombers targeted England more because it was closer and therefore easier to get to.

I have rewritten the sentence regarding the Blitz. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some parts of the article do not meet MOS:IMAGELOC: sandwiching in the "Demographics" section Improved.

I could go on. There's been a little bit of progress in the last week towards resolving these issues, but not nearly enough to bring it up to GA quality. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The copyvio report found some close paraphrasing that needs to be fixed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Removed copyvio. buidhe 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• We've made some progress, but there are still no sections for art or architecture. At 78k prose after significant cuts, the article will have to be trimmed to make room for the additions. I suggest that the history and government sections could be cut somewhat. buidhe 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• The verifiability problems are extensive. I just checked more than a dozen references and found that a majority did not support the content. Furthermore, the excessive use of official sources is evident; a close look proves that they are used to support opinion-based statements such as "The MOU lays emphasis on the principles of good communication, consultation and co-operation". Removed. This article is very far from passing the verifiability criterion of the Good Article criteria. buidhe 01:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)