Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Washington, D.C./1

Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus PeterSymonds | talk 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Chicago strives to regain its WP:GA status, WP:CHICAGO is looking at other comparable municipalities to strive toward. Unfortunately, this is not what I believe it should be striving toward. The WP:LEAD is more than the max four paragraphs and large blocks of text are uncited. I do not consider this article any better than Chicago, which was duly delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I have corrected the issue with the lead paragraph. I agree that the article's referencing is spotty. Most sections are OK. However, sections on music, media, colleges and transportantion need additional citations. Majoreditor (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. You have corrected the WP:LEAD for flow. However, now the lead is not really cited adequately. I believe a lead is either suppose to be uncited with all facts cited in the main body or completely cited. In order for something that is properly structured to be completely cited it must have at least one citation per paragraph. Otherwise the paragraphs are not presenting distinct points. From there the inadequacy of citation continues, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that interpretation. But in any case, each paragraph in the lead now has one or more citations. The lead is fine; however, some other sections remain under-referenced. Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your efforts. We just need someone to replicate that effort for the main body of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: there is a great deal flexibility about how the lead is cited. There are only two requirements, I believe: (1) anything uncited in the lead which needs citation should be discussed and cited in the rest of the article; (2) quotations and controversial matters (especially those relating to living persons) need to be cited wherever they appear, including the lead. There's a lot of ground inbetween for citing some key points, and leaving the rest to the body of the article. This should be left to editorial judgement. Geometry guy 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few citation requests to the article. Hopefully the editors can provide the needed references or, alternatively, remove the material. If not then the article should be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issues haven't been addressed. Delist, with regrets. Majoreditor (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Aside from the obvious {{fact}} tag issues, I also see several entire sections & subsections that are unsourced, which is also an issue. The overall organization of the article could also use an overhaul -- I see several subsections within main sections that could be combined to improve readability (e.g. media, transportation, education). Why is there a specific subsection under economy for 'insurance and banking'? It seems rather short, and I'm not sure of the purpose of the additional emphasis here. Likewise, what's with the subsection under 'government' for 'domestic partnerships' (and its info isn't even cited either!)? I'd have to call WP:NPOV here.

Sadly, many of the sections have just been edited to heavily and the text has just gotten a bit too burdensome in the two years since the last WP:GAN. So I'm seriously in doubt that this meets the GA criteria at the present time. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]