Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wikipedia/1

Wikipedia[edit]

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

Result: Delisted.–Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has seen a substantial amount of edit warring recently, and the talk page is full of disputes. The infobox as I see it now has several {{fact}} and {{verification failed}} tags. This doesn't look like a GA. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disputes would eventually settle; the tag bombs are by a single user, which is part of the edit-warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count at least five people with edits I would describe as "major reverts" - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Even disregarding that, I can see several unsourced claims (eg: "They [rules on non-English Wikipedia] have since diverged to some extent", "However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair", "the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century words as hoovering or Coca-Cola"), "Hardware operations and support" has an "outdated" tag, the paragraph describing h2g2 is unsourced, and there are several other {{fact}} tags in the text. It might have met the GA criteria in 2006, but I don't think it does anymore without some substantial work. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has too many unsourced claims and other issues to continue with GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree- I have counted nine claims with CN templates, along with some others including clarify and not in citation given templates. In addition, there are a lot more unsourced/ unverified claims than that. Also, the Hardware operations and support section is outdated.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree-for such a long article, the 9 cn templates are few and far between. For such a popular topic, I'm surprised more information hasn't been scrutinized, but I'd expect some cn tags to come up since its GA nomination. They're likely easily fixable, and so minor that it shouldn't involve de-listing.--ɱ (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: did you not see that the page has issues other than the uncited claims?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like except your claim that a bit of information is outdated, there are no complaints here listing problems other than that there's some unsourced information.--ɱ (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you think it was put there in bad faith, the presence of a section tag can generally be considered a deal breaker. Add the instability and unverifiable content, and that would probably be enough for me to quickfail this article if it was presented for a GA review now - wouldn't even bother putting it on hold. A GA should have zero citation needed tags at all times. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, there's no rule saying a GA can't accumulate cn tags over time, and likely many will over time, after a certain amount of neglect from dedicated authors, but that doesn't mean that the article's quality has lowered down to remove its GA quality. Anyway, I'll stop arguing and perhaps just try to fix these minor problems everyone thinks are a big deal.--ɱ (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia would a group of authors want to bicker over problems on their own article rather want to than fix them.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ahem* - we should fix them, but until we do, the article should not have the GA flag, and it should go through a full re-review. That is all I am really getting at. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is that? And reassessments can and should involve active editing, otherwise probably every GAR would fail... I'm fixing your problems right now.--ɱ (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, but don't bother formatting my cites, I'm using Reflinks to do it.--ɱ (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like we replaced all of the cn tags and/or removed unverifiable content. Are there further problems?--ɱ (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while one or two "citation tags" alone wouldn't lead me to fail an article, lack of stability would receive an automatical fail from me without further review. If there were a large amount of such tags, I would fail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But now there aren't any cn tags. Also, please tell me of this article instability you describe; I can't spot any. IP vandalism shouldn't be an obstacle from keeping an article a GA.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism indeed does not affect stability, though I was just making a general comment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I concur with Ritchie, there's lots of content not supported with sources. As a general rule of thumb, the end of each paragraph should be cited (not counting those in lead). There are multiple uncited paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Lead is blatantly in violation of Wikipedi'a guidelines in the Summary of the criticism section. By using WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:COAT it completely distorts and nullifies the vast Criticism section. It is Violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the purpose of WP:Promotion. as OP linked to the differences (originally 6&7) [6], [7] (I'm the contributer of [9]) Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I wrote the above ("there aren't any cn tags"), the replying user Snuggums decided to tag everything with a cn tag, which in my book is nothing but editing to make a WP:POINT. His disruptive edits ought to be reverted, as a start.--ɱ (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't exaggerate, ɱ- I didn't tag everything. While not every sentence needs a citation (WP:OVERCITE), every paragraph does need at least one reference except for lead sections (WP:LEADCITE) and plot sections of shows, books, movies, TV episodes, concerts, and such. WP:V is policy. As a general rule of thumb, it's best to have at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. You also do not WP:OWN the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never said I did, but your idea of one ref per para is not a policy or even a guideline. Your edits appear to be merely disruptive and as opposition to my 'there's no cn tags to worry about' statement. Clearly you want this article delisted, and will mark it up as much as possible in order for that to happen.--ɱ (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't to go against your statement. Assuming good faith in others who mean well is policy per WP:AGF, and it offends me how you are openly assuming bad faith when all I wanted was to know what sources support certain statements and for such statements to be supported. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Far too many issues as stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then please go ahead and try to fix some of them. I've tried, although other users are creating and noting more problems to further the likelihood that this'll be delisted.--ɱ (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: Apart from one opposing vote, all of the other participants in the reassessment suggest delisting the article. I'll be archiving this process shortly.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]