Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mission San Juan Capistrano/1

Mission San Juan Capistrano edit

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

Result: Procedural delist. The article was never nominated or properly reviewed. Geometry guy 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mission Industries section is not neutral and needs verification for at least two statements. Please see the Discussion page (for Mission San Juan Capistrano) for details.

I'm brand new to Wikipedia and will appreciate feedback. Sabbaticalready (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't reviewed the entire article yet(lazy slacker that I am -- I'm on vacation.) However, the Industries section has problems. First and foremost is a lack of citations. I have flagged certain statements which need in-line references.

The POV issue is mingled with the citation problem. I understand Sabbaticalready's point that the section presents the Native Americans in an unfair light. I suggest that the article's editors research the issue by going to high-quality reliable sources. Let the sources tell the story. I'll try to review the rest of the article later; in the meanwhile, perhaps other editors wish to share their observations. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The article has too many pictures, most of which are not even near text related to the image. The article would be better off with a few less images. Nikki311 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something very odd seems to have gone on with this article's GA assessments. As far as I can tell, it has never been properly assessed. It was apparently delisted (and therefore must once have been listed, though I can find no review), then relisted (although things aren't straightforward - see the talk page archive), because an editor thought "it's even better than before!" Granted, this was a couple of years ago, but it was clearly an unsafe listing at best. I suggest we should restore the delisting for now, and recommend nominating the article at WP:GAN for a proper assessment. However, I have to say that I don't believe it would pass in its current form. The entire "Prehistory" section is dubious, having nothing much to with the article subject; there are factual statements in the lead that need citing or backing up in the article body; the lead itself does not really comply with WP:LEAD; in places the prose needs copyediting; although some sections are well-referenced, others are not; the article over-uses images (including non-free ones); and the "External links" section needs a trim. I hope my comments aren't too disheartening - clearly a lot of work has gone into this article, and it has the potential to be very good. Our most important article foundation - sourcing - is very impressive, and so is the attention to detail. I suggest comparing it to similar GAs (perhaps Elgin Cathedral?), to see the kind of thing we're after. EyeSerene^talk 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delist. Well spotted EyeSerene! It is safer to check the talk page history than the archives, and in this case the history is short, recording multiple abuses of process :-)

The second edit listed the article as GA with no review, but hey, in the pioneering early days of GA, the frontier was still to be conquered! A year later it was delisted for having not been nominated properly. These were the times when "not enough inlines" was just beginning to rise as the clarion call of GA reviewers, from which we are still recovering. Unfortunately the delister failed to update the WikiProject Catholicism rating, and this remained unchanged to this day.

Barely a month later, it was relisted (with no nomination or review) in a minor (!!) edit by Mr Snrub. He covered his tracks with another edit, but two weeks later his ruse was spotted, and the article was delisted again: no review this time, but, not surprisingly for the period, WP:V was the only justification given. Undeterred, Mr Snrub saw an opportunity when WikiProject California tagged the article. With an even more cunning plan he listed the article, then covered his edit by updating the WikiProject rating.

Cemented by [1] [2] [3] further edits, the GA status was retained from October 2006 until the present day. Mr Snrub has not contributed since 20 June 2007, otherwise I would be (struggling) to assume good faith rather than making a joke of it. I hope GA is doing considerably better in 2008 than it was in 2006. Geometry guy 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job unravelling that, I'm impressed! I did briefly glance at the history, but looking for evidence of a proper GA review (which was conspicuous by its absence). Unfortunately it seems our Snonpmis fan conducted other GA 'reviews'; Architecture of the California missions, Grand Central Station (Chicago) and Union Station (San Diego) may bear revisiting, although the latter two don't look too bad. If I get the time I'll take a proper look at them tomorrow - all three have yet to be swept. EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that all that is established, who's volunteering to put together a Template:ArticleHistory? ;)--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Sandy? EyeSerene^talk 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]