Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Western Wall/1
Western Wall[edit]
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Sourcing issues, involving uncited material, verifiability concerns, and dubious references, remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This 2007 listing has quite a few issues:
- GA criterion 1b):
- Numerous subsections are very short, which breaches MOS:OVERSECTION;
- The lead, which currently stands at 758 words, may be too long per MOS:LEADLENGTH;
- It contains uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b);
- It has numerous tags for NPOV issues, meaning GA criterion 4 may not be met;
- And at over 10,500 words, not counting quotes, tables, captions, or lists, this article might contain excessive detail and not meet GA criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- There definitely appear to be more than a few aspects to the page that are a complete mess – as not untypical for one of these very dated GAs. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Who ever did care about GA or GAGA or whatwver? It's work in progress, a politically hotly disputed site (by more sides than meets the eye), and classical encyclopaedic gem-like cut & polish won't ever be reached. Arminden (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- People said that about J. K. Rowling, Arminden, and yet it still has an FA star. Anyway, thanks for tackling some of the issues, and in response to your post on the talk page, you can find the automatically-updated archives in the talk header template at the top. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I would find it better to keep on the active talk page topics which are still being discussed. It seems to me that we have a hyperactive archiving bot patrolling the talk page.
- I said that I don't care much at all about stars and Wiki labels; about improved quality I most certainly do. Arminden (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the parameters of the archive bot so sections should stick around longer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- People said that about J. K. Rowling, Arminden, and yet it still has an FA star. Anyway, thanks for tackling some of the issues, and in response to your post on the talk page, you can find the automatically-updated archives in the talk header template at the top. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Who ever did care about GA or GAGA or whatwver? It's work in progress, a politically hotly disputed site (by more sides than meets the eye), and classical encyclopaedic gem-like cut & polish won't ever be reached. Arminden (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- There definitely appear to be more than a few aspects to the page that are a complete mess – as not untypical for one of these very dated GAs. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
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.