Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Appomattox Court House National Historical Park/1

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park

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: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 18:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Coldwell GA. This is somewhat my fault, as I missed a number of issues in my GA review in 2020 (which was the year I first was involved in the GA process). I've done a general rewrite, so copyvio isn't an issue anymore, but there were several instances of failed verification that need to be resolved yet. Much harder to fix will be weighting/comprehensiveness concerns I have - IMO the 1840s village stuff is disproportionately weighted, while the post-1950 NPS ownership needs additional information. I'm in a busy season with work and don't have the print sources that would be most useful in fixing the comprehensiveness issues. I'm genuinely sad to see this one probably go, but if this is going to be fixed, someone else is going to need to pitch in above the time I spent on this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist barring a total rewrite and fixing of sourcing issues. Anything written by Coldwell is guaranteed to be filled with close paraphrasing, failed verification, and factual errors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trainsandotherthings: - the close paraphrasing (in this case, one sentence largely copied) has been removed, and the failed verification has all either been removed, sourced, or tagged. Several minor factual errors have been corrected. The total rewrite had (mostly) occurred, it's just that there's underlying weighting/comprehensiveness issues I don't have the time or sources to fix. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That's fair. I do still stand by delisting based on what you said just above, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The last of the failed verification is gone - per Sturm's comment below, I just removed most of the unverified text, and then dug up a citation for the last part. Hog Farm _Talk 00:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Most of the village stuff isn't relevant to the park and should be dumped, IMO. And I agree with Hog Farm that the stuff about the Park itself needs expansion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.