Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Haymarket affair/1

Haymarket affair 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 • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. This article appears to be in good shape, although one editor feels there is some bias, which I could not find myself. The article is well referenced, reads well and conforms sufficiently with the MoS. I removed a "weasel words" tag which had been placed on a quotation as I feel that tagging a quotation in this way is inappropriate. I also consolidated one stray sentence in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one may see by viewing the article and its talk page, as well as external media coverage, Haymarket affair fails to integrate current research regarding the matter. Start would be a more appropriate classification. Considerable work is needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC) All of the questions raised in Timothy Messer-Kruse's blog http://blogs.bgsu.edu/haymarket/myth-2-no-evidence/ need to be addressed at a minimum, regardless of whether the sweeping assertions he claims to have proved, page 8 of his book, are accepted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure whether I am proceeding in an appropriate way, see Talk:Haymarket_affair#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. Perhaps since the assessment was done so long ago a simple delisting, followed by efforts to improve the article would be more appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all affected Wikiprojects have been notified at this point. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original discussion which concerned the article version of January 24, 2008 is at Talk:Haymarket_affair/Archive_3#Good_article_nomination_on_hold, approving reviewer was a prior account of User:Steven Walling who has been notified. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some major changes have occurred since this was initiated [1]. They appear to be addressing the issue that the nominator raised. Does this re-assessment need to continue? AIRcorn (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are mostly my work, much of which is reverted on sight. The article, which remains an embarrassment, is still being defended by a small crew of POV editors. It will take several months at the current rate to make substantial improvements. Spurious policy "reasons" to maintain the article in its current state continue to surface. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "small crew" is a half dozen or more. The "other side" is mainly, if not entirely, Fred. The most "embarrassing" part of the editing history is the attempt, in the name of improvement, to add 22,000 bytes of text based entirely on primary sources (trial transcripts) -- it is perfectly proper to revert such edits. The surest way to get the article delisted is to replace secondary sources with primary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep listing Appears to meet the standards of GA from a casual read through. Note that GA requirement is not nearly as strict as a FA. Also, as Aircorn notes, recent objections have been largely addressed. LK (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the requirements of GA's is that they are focused. Addition such as this fall outside that criteria and have been correctly reverted. Since this review was opened it appears many of the concerns have been addressed. While there is certainly room for improvement nothing from my read through, admittedly as someone who knows very little about the topic, could be described as an embarrassment. As has been stated above the GA criteria are not that strict and in my opinion it meets those criteria. I would recommend keeping this as a good article and sorting out any further improvements at the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2012 (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.