Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Zarqa River/1

Zarqa River edit

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

Result: Kept I can't find any evidence that the sockpuppets were the same people. Unfortunately sockpuppeteering is rife here so it is possible for these to be all unrelated. The article itself is not perfect, but we are not looking for perfect (some more references would be nice). Without further comments on it failing to meet the criteria I am closing this as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to translate this article to another Wikipedia project seeing this as a Good Article, but after reading for a while I felt like this might not fit GA standard. It wasn't until now that I realized the original GA review discussion was only participated by users who have abused sockpuppets and have been blocked indefinitely. Only these users participated in the review:

These accounts also majorly edited the article in its early phase (2008-2009). Now I would like a reassessment by community to see if this article meets GA standard. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 19:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PlyrStar93: It is strange that all participants were sockpuppets, but as far as I can tell none were sock puppets of each other.It has happened before that someone has nominated an article and then passed it themselves (which is an instant delisting), but in this case the reviews was probably a different person. Although given the history of one of those accounts I might investigate a bit more. Is there anything specifically in the article that you are concerned about related to the WP:GACR. I will give it a quick look through for any obvious failings. AIRcorn (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]