Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas)/1

University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas)

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 • GAN review not found

Result: Uncontroversial delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags which have been there since August 2022. Steelkamp (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is in extremely poor shape, and I've been meaning to get it to GAR for a while myself but keep forgetting.

1. Some of the [citation needed] tags were in violation of WP:LEADCITE, but I did find a decent amount of uncited content elsewhere in the article.
2. Only nine sources is extremely pathetic for a supposedly GA-class article. Compare Merle Hay Mall, which was promoted to GA in 2008 but has held up pretty well. Also compare Tri-City Pavilions or Swifton Center, which are both also GA-class mall articles and considerably more thorough in sourcing than this one is.
3. Tone issues such as " when the Main Street Mall succumbed to the effects of Little Rock's dying downtown", "tenants voiced concerns", "felt that it was a good buy", etc.
4. Most importantly, seven of the nine sources are dead links. For this alone, I think it's a good idea to WP:IAR and speedy delist. Pinging @Lee Vilenski:, @Iazyges:, @Chipmunkdavis:, and @Trainsandotherthings: for their thoughts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My word, this even went to FAC! Erm, yeah, we'd need the citations needed fixed. It's not so much of an issue that there is only a few sources, but everything in the article needs to be suitably attributed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, something being a deadlink doesn't make the citation any less reliable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a pretty glaring maintenance issue that severely compromises the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a good article in its current state, obviously. Yes the deadlinks need fixing but this isn't really a speedy delist, either. We do need the citation needed tags resolved as well. If no improvements are made, this would likely be delisted in a week or two. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 5 April 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.