Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Serpentine (lake)/1

Serpentine (lake) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept Nominators concerns have been addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern with this article is a lack of referencing; there are seven unreferenced paragraphs and a few other spots where more could be used. When it was passed in 2007, the level of referencing was not much different than it is currently. Also, the lead, in my opinion, doesn't summarize the whole article and, while not a GA criterion, the gallery is a bit excessive. I left a note about the referencing on the article talk page about five days ago, and there has been no response. Chris857 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Top 2 editors, plus three relevant WikiProjects have been notified) Chris857 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend any time cleaning this up—this is a dull article with five years of accreted spam—but out of interest, which GA criteria are you claiming it doesn't meet, even in this decayed state? There isn't an never has been a requirement that everything be referenced at GA level, only "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", none of which apply here; the statements you've slapped {{citation needed}} tags on (which probably took you longer than it would have taken to look them up) are such things as "There are two lakeside restaurants and various recreational facilities on the shore of the Serpentine" and "a memorial on the northern shore of the lake commemorates the Norwegian Defence Forces' role in World War II". The only thing I'd consider even possibly covered by "likely to be challenged" is the waffle about the police station, which shouldn't really be there at all since the police station is in the park, not on the banks of the lake. – iridescent 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On looking carefully, Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines seems to be the only place were "1 per paragraph" is codified, though only as a rule of thumb. However, it seems to be bandied about a fair bit, from as far back as 2007. I would like a third person/party to weigh in. However, the referencing has improved. Chris857 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a blow for all the "dull" little articles, I've done some work on the referencing, which I think is more or less OK now. Perhaps the only thing you (Iridescent) might take issue with is my removal of the 1906 Diana fountain (which I guess to avoid confusion with the later crappy Diana memorial "fountain" is now called Artemis); looking at a map, it seemed too far from the Serpentine to be included. The image gallery, whether excessive or not, isn't a part of the GA criteria, and neither is the nonsensical "one citation per paragraph". GAR ought not to be used to impose personal preferences. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also now expanded the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my concerns have now been addressed. Chris857 (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the wider point, note that DYK has insisted on 1 ref per para for a couple of years now, & it is rather odd if the GA criteria are lower than that. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd idea of "lower". So far as I'm aware DYK has (quite mistakenly) fairly recently insisted that the the sentence containing the hook fact is immediately cited, wherever it appears, but DYK is a wild and lawless place anyway, best avoided. What they do there is their business. There is absolutely no reason why every paragraph should be cited, but so far as this article is concerned, there are no paragraphs without at least one citation. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Why is "lower" odd. See D2 at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. In practice this is normally enforced. At least you know where you are at DYK; GA has no consistent standard or approach, which is why I avoid it. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you here? Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]