Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Central Atlas Tamazight/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Many uncited statements, including almost the entire "Geographic distribution" section, many sources used in the bibloography are not used as inline citations, and there are many one or two sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you tried going back to the originally reviewed version? Or removing the uncited sources? Or citing them? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maunus: The promoted version from 2009 also has uncited sections, since GA standards were lower back then. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to evaluate what should be cited and what should be removed: if undertook a search for sources, it would take me hours (or even long) for me to properly evaluate, cite, and rewrite the information when necessary. This would take me away from other projects that I would like to work on. If another editor would like to improve this article, I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 2009 version of the article was written by multiple topic experts, several of which were actual linguists working with the language professionally. Those experts however, did not sign up to be on permanent call for removing accumulated junk or for updating the article to conform to whichever standards would come to be implemented some time i the future. You may think that this kind of drive-by reassessment and delisting somehow improves Wikipedia, but in fact it does not. Only doing the actual work does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maunus: I thank anyone who has worked on this article in the past or presently. However, this article does not have to have GA status. If editors are not "doing the actual work" to maintain the article, then, in my opinion, we should delist the article so that readers know that this article does not meet the GA criteria anymore. If editors do improve the article to address my concerns, then I think Wikipedia has been improved. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The 2009 version of the article was written by multiple topic experts, several of which were actual linguists working with the language professionally. Those experts however, did not sign up to be on permanent call for removing accumulated junk or for updating the article to conform to whichever standards would come to be implemented some time i the future. You may think that this kind of drive-by reassessment and delisting somehow improves Wikipedia, but in fact it does not. Only doing the actual work does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Maunus: The promoted version from 2009 also has uncited sections, since GA standards were lower back then. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to evaluate what should be cited and what should be removed: if undertook a search for sources, it would take me hours (or even long) for me to properly evaluate, cite, and rewrite the information when necessary. This would take me away from other projects that I would like to work on. If another editor would like to improve this article, I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you tried going back to the originally reviewed version? Or removing the uncited sources? Or citing them? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)